View Full Version : Climate Change - scam or no scam?
Did you read the links?
The drive, intelligence and application? - you mean it is the job they are paid for?
let's not try to paint these people as superheroes or tireless benefactors working ceaselessly for the betterment of humanity. They are just people like you and me, with car payments, mortgages, school fees and so on.
It surely takes drive, intelligence and application to rise to the top of any field?
They are indeed people like you and me. This is important. Would you live your whole life and career as a lie if you were intelligent enough to become a professor of oceanography, or whatever?
I know I wouldn't.
>
Regarding your complaint that no one ever addresses the jewel of your argument: "Why hasn't the temperature risen in 20 years then?"
I think the problem here is that it has been addressed. People have said that you are mistaken and that the temperature has risen. When someone posts a link or graph you dismiss it (ie "that's from a propaganda website") It is very difficult to discuss this issue with you because you just dismiss anything that you don't agree with as nonsense ("argumentum ad lapidem" is I think the term for this type of fallacious argument, but you use so many that it is difficult to keep up!) - for example I wrote a very long post with links to the history of ice core drilling, and a very comprehensive summary of paleoclimatology.
Your response was twofold:
1. You diverted attention away from what I had written by taking exception to the fact that I think that the very least you can do for people who have figured out how to drill a non-tainted 3.6KM ice core sample from the most inhospitable part of the planet, and also invented ways to decode what is contained in the ice into hard data that looks back half a million years is to do them the courtesy of not dismissing what they have to say about that data as lies and propaganda.
2. You ignored everything else in the post apart from the PURE PHYSICS that is NOT IN DOUBT that CO2 causes temprature to rise. To this you replied "so why hasn't it risen in the past twenty years then?"
The simple answer is that it has risen.
Have you not read the most recent IPCC report (Assessment Report 5)? It clearly states global average temp has increased. It's about 1.5 degrees.
It's not a propaganda website, it's the best consensus there is.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
I am saddened to think that even though you stated clearly that you were willing to be proven wrong, your response to this IPCC report will be something along the lines of: "Ah well they would say that they just want funding, if you read Piers Corbyn's website he disagrees".
Maybe you will, maybe you won't?
R
:concertina:
<Stifles a BIG YAWN>
;)
At what point can we all 'agree to disagree' and go to the pub?
Marco.
Oldpinkman
21-04-2016, 06:33
<Stifles a BIG YAWN>
;)
At what point can we all 'agree to disagree' and go to the pub?
Marco.
As with any other circular argument - when you get bored and lock the thread. The alternative is just to stop reading it. There will not be a meeting of minds. Macca subscribes to the global conspiracy theory and no amount of scientific data or rational argument about the subject of climate change science and evidence will persuade him to deviate from his article of faith - it just demonstrates the complete dominance of the massive global con performed by the evil mainstream scientists .
And everyone else is looking at the science, and the consensus, naively ignoring the SPECTRE organisation which binds nominally independent academics in a conspiracy to defraud the world to secure funding for their otherwise pointless scientific research.
It's more a question of faith - and differences in faith are not resolved by rational debate. Mercifully, as with so many other subjects debated, the future of the planet is not in the hands of a few forum members, and those responsible for the future of the planet have bought the con and only disagree about what to do about it, and when.
Martin's stance on the matter may be a little 'hard line', but ins and outs of climate change aside, I agree with him in that one should always question and be suspicious/sceptical of what one is being told by 'knowledgeable authorities', on ANY matter, as in this grossly corrupt world of ours, ulterior motives often erode the truth...
Whilst I'm taking no sides in this particular debate, the message of remaining sceptical, and not swallowing the notion that the world's authorities are all 'good guys', honest as the day is long, and here to enlighten and protect us, is a good one ;)
Marco.
I don't subscribe to a global conspiracy theory. that is not how things work but it is a good dismissive line and it would appear the only argument that you have.
Interestingly that was the PhDs first move, when he realised I knew what I was talking about he had to fall back to a more rational defence.
Both graphs produced show a .5 degree increase in temperature - the margin of error is .5 degrees - so within the margin of error - therefore nothing can be concluded from that. This is basic stuff, folks.
The IPCC are well known for fabricating evidence. Their annual reports have been consistently criticised - amongst their references they have in the past used an article from a climbing magazine and a propaganda leaflet from an extremist green pressure group. These were passed off as scientific papers until some people smart enough not to unquestioningly accept the word of 'authority' investigated and discovered the fraud. The IPCC was forced to apologise and promise greater rigour in future reports.
Those of you who pay attention to these things may also recall their major error on the melting of Himalayan Glaciers. Here is a link to that debacle from The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake
The IPCC are an embarrassment to science - attempting to use them as some sort of gold standard is laughable to anyone who has studied this subject - and that includes those who are convinced that man made warming is fact.
The head of the IPCC is not a climate scientist, in fact he is not a scientist at all.
The main purpose of the IPCC is to channel money to third world countries supposedly 'suffering' from climate change i.e wealth re-distribution. As a scientific body it has been wholly discredited.
There seems to be some confusion amongst you as to the difference between scientific research and drawing conclusions from that research - they are not the same thing.
I don't subscribe to a global conspiracy theory. that is not how things work but it is a good dismissive line and it would appear the only argument that you have.
I have to concede that this is partially correct insofar as that by dismissing every scientific argument proposed as not credible, you force us into a choice.
Whilst it may seem to you that the only argument against you is that you are being dismissed as a deranged conspiracy theorist, what I believe is really occurring is that you are forcing this definition upon yourself with your constant repetition that anything said which does not agree with you just shows how duped that person is.
By constantly dismissing any and every argument against you, the binary choice that you are imposing upon us is this one:
1. Accept that he know better than all of the scientists and that I am a duped idiot.
OR
2. He is a deluded conspiracy theorist.
There seems to be some confusion amongst you as to the difference between scientific research and drawing conclusions from that research - they are not the same thing.
This is not correct. You are mistaking the definition of Field Research to be Scientific Research.
>
For the sake of the thread, let's for a second assume that you are correct.
We accept that the basic instinct of an intelligent human is to lie.
We accept that the scientists are lying about their findings, and that they have colluded so that the lie is consistent across disciplines.
After more than fifty years of faking everything, of drilling 3600m deep holes in -80C temperatures, of all the glorious hard work that has gone into the wonderful web of lies that they have spun to defraud the world into buying them more skidoos and helicopters and paying into their pension funds etc, the scientists are faced with a situation where they have realised that their lie was not good enough.
In all that faked data, and the spurious conclusions they have cobbled together from it, they realise that they made the fundamental error of forgetting to concoct a story that was solid. There are fundamental holes in their position.
Who do you think was to blame for a cock up on this scale? I mean a fifty year plot to defraud the whole of humanity, and whoever came up with the script made such a basic error that it could be spotted by Piers Corbyn and Nigel Lawson? All that effort, and for naught!
Do you think they are angry?
>
:scratch:
This is particularly good at around 9m30s when he is asked if any of his papers on the subject has been peer reviewed. I would recommend watching the whole thing if you have time and can be bothered.
http://youtu.be/Z_Ae4DES9z8?t=5m40s
Martin's stance on the matter may be a little 'hard line', but ins and outs of climate change aside, I agree with him in that one should always question and be suspicious/sceptical of what one is being told by 'knowledgeable authorities', on ANY matter, as in this grossly corrupt world of ours, ulterior motives often erode the truth...
Oh, I dunno. Do you have the time, knowledge, inclination or money to do your own research on issues that are important? if not, is it surely not sensible to accept what the 'knowledgeable experts' say, since they have done the research, often over decades if not centuries? There are some issues where even the experts are divided, and where you pays your money and takes your choice, but where do you drop the suspicion and accept that the case has been proven?
Robert - I'm sorry but you have repeated the error you made much earlier in the thread when you revealed that you had never heard of Richard Lindzen- by holding up the IPCC as some sort of end of line authority it makes it clear that you have absolutely no knowledge of the history and events surrounding this subject.
As such I see little point in continuing the discussion until you get up to speed - I have done the required reading and established a position based on that. You have not done the reading and are therefore making basic errors.
I am not suggesting a 'global conspiracy' and the choices are not 1) all scientists are honest and truthful or 2) there is a global conspiracy
I appreciate that as I have been studying this subject for 9 years and you have just started, that it will take some time for you to get up to speed and be able to see the whole in other than binary terms. So best leave it there.
Massive bleaching of The Great Barrier Reef - natural causes? It's around 500,000 years "young", with the top (live) layer around 8,000 years old.
......clear that you have absolutely no knowledge of the history and events surrounding this subject.
I appreciate that as I have been studying this subject for 9 years and you have just started, that it will take some time for you to get up to speed and be able to see the whole in other than binary terms. So best leave it there.
It is very touching that you should be so considerate of my ignorance in this area, Martin.
I hadn't realised that you had been studying the subject for nine years.
Coincidentally, I took this portrait about nine years ago. He is called Charlie Bentley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_R._Bentley) - a truly charming man, and very interesting. (It was taken at the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge at the meeting of the IGS.) At the very least you might like the photograph.
http://www.robertdphillips.com/assets/images/charlie_bentley.jpg
You might find the publication I have linked to below interesting? I would imagine that you could use parts of it out of context to help argue your position, although my hope in posting it here is that you might read it and absorb the difficulties involved on both sides of the fence, and the serious concerns on the scientific side about how they should best go about communicating their research.
To quote from the report:
"Findings from the social and behavioural sciences explain how people, given identical evidence, can come to opposing conclusions. They also provide an explanation for people’s natural inclination to denigrate those who hold opposing convictions. Taken together, these two insights help to explain the contested nature of climate science. An understanding of these issues can help climate scientists to better carry out their role as Pure Scientists, as well as to interact with the public more effectively and productively."
UCL POLICY COMMISSION ON COMMUNICATING CLIMATE SCIECE (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/policy_commissions/Communication-climate-science/Communication-climate-science-report/TIME_FOR_CHANGE_Final_Proof.pdf)
(If you still persist in telling me that I know nothing about this area, I may have to post my portrait of Walter Munk!)
R
:)
Oh, I dunno. Do you have the time, knowledge, inclination or money to do your own research on issues that are important? if not, is it surely not sensible to accept what the 'knowledgeable experts' say, since they have done the research, often over decades if not centuries?
Listen to, yes, accept, no; certainly not automatically, without due scrutiny. There is a tendency, IMO, for us to be somewhat obsequious towards 'experts', and rather too readily accepting of what they have to say on any matter, without sufficient questioning of both their knowledge and true motives.
There are some issues where even the experts are divided, and where you pays your money and takes your choice, but where do you drop the suspicion and accept that the case has been proven?
Use your gut instincts, coupled perhaps with sufficient proof (for you) that what's being said is either true or false. Retain exercising your own mind and judgement criteria, be a free-thinker, and never simply 'swallow' what you're being told by ANYONE, is my advice... ;)
Marco.
Use your gut instincts, coupled perhaps with sufficient proof (for you) that what's being said is either true or false. Retain having your own mind and judgement criteria, be a free-thinker, and never simply 'swallow' what you're being told by ANYONE, is my advice...
May be ok when it comes to choosing washing powder, but the above will fail big time if you decide to use your gut instinct with much of Physics. Likewise that approach lead to huge numbers of kids not being immunised. We are unable to know if the expert is correct or not, BUT the chance of us knowing enough about the subject (in close to 100% cases) to make a better choice approaches 0, so game theory would suggest the safe bet is to always trust the "expert", this will on average give a better outcome that never trusting, or choosing at random to trust or not. Did you check the source code in the computer you were using before posting on the net?, did you check the maths behind the encryption before buying from ebay? Each day, we accept the opinion of "experts" thousands of times without even knowing we are doing it.
Each day, we accept the opinion of "experts" thousands of times without even knowing we are doing it.
Absolutely, but sometimes it doesn't stop us being suspicious of them (those of course that we're aware of) ;)
My view is simply 'believe what you want to believe', but never be so naive to think that what you're being told by anyone, 'experts' included, isn't subject to some form of agenda. I'm thinking here mainly when it comes to politics!
Marco.
Absolutely, but sometimes it doesn't stop us being suspicious of them (those of course that we're aware of) ;)
My view is simply 'believe what you want to believe', but never be so naive to think that what you're being told by anyone, 'experts' included, isn't subject to some form of agenda. I'm thinking here mainly when it comes to politics!
Marco.
You might find the UCL report interesting, Marco.
"We quickly see a solution to a problem, have an intuition that a proposition is true or false,
or decide that someone can be trusted or not.
This initial intuition may be
accompanied by a search for explicit reasons to support or override it.
The recognition that our thinking is dominated by autonomous processes
that may or may not bear deliberative review is an important part to
understanding our reactions to climate change. These insights apply as
much to lay responses to the science and policy options, and to their
judgements about the trustworthiness of scientists, as they do to scientists’
own framing of the science and participation in the public debate."
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Indeed. That is interesting. I may comment later :)
Marco.
Listen to, yes, accept, no; certainly not automatically, without due scrutiny. There is a tendency, IMO, for us to be somewhat obsequious towards 'experts', and rather too readily accepting of what they have to say on any matter, without sufficient questioning of both their knowledge and true motives.
I'm not sure that there's much contentious advice offered by what I would regard as 'experts', really. The health advice is generally common sense (don't smoke, drink in moderation, cut out as much sugar and salt from your diet as possible), similarly with most health and safety guidance. I'm actually struggling to think of any other areas where 'experts' offer unanimous advice that we are expected to accept without question; financial experts offer conflicting opinions, for example, and any political advice is by its nature bound to be partisan.
I'm actually struggling to think of any other areas where 'experts' offer unanimous advice that we are expected to accept without question...
Well, I can think of plenty in relation to the subject of audio, much of which I've routinely ignored - and usually to my significant (sonic) advantage!
With hi-fi, when I want something built or modified, I'll consult or enlist the help of an 'expert' (usually an EE), as I'm not qualified to do the job, but when I'm assessing the efficacy of a piece of equipment or cables in my system, I use my ears, because those belonging to the 'expert' aren't necessarily any better than mine ;)
Sometimes that thinking (essentially using one's own faculties as the ultimate arbiter, whether or not they conflict with those of an 'expert') can be successfully applied elsewhere... The fact is, experts are never 'know-it-alls'.
Marco.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Lol - that's a genuine condition, which some undoubtedly suffer from. However, I don't think that being a skeptical/inquisitive/free-thinking type, who's willing to trust his own faculties over those of an 'expert', when it *could* be advantageous to do so, qualifies them as such.
For example, let's say I pay you to build me an amplifier, and when I get it, in many ways I'm delighted with it, but to my ears, and in the context of my system, it produces too much bass. You disagree, because it measures perfectly on your test equipment - and you're adamant about that. For you, it's 'transparent'.
I'm equally adamant that it's bass-heavy.
In that scenario, whose opinion matters most: yours (as the 'expert EE') or the customer who ultimately has to live with the amplifier in his system? I trust you can see where I'm going with this....
There are many similar instances in life, not just in audio, where the opinion of an expert shouldn't just automatically be 'obeyed' ;)
Marco.
Lol - that's a genuine condition, which some undoubtedly suffer from. However, I don't think that being a skeptical/inquisitive/free-thinking type, who's willing to trust his own faculties over those of an 'expert', when it *could* be advantageous to do so, qualifies them as such.
For example, I pay you to build me an amplifier, and when I get it, in many ways I'm delighted with it, but to my ears, and in the context of my system, it produces too much bass. You disagree, because it measures perfectly on your test equipment - and you're adamant about that. For you, it's 'transparent'.
I'm equally adamant that it's bass-heavy.
In that scenario, whose opinion matters most: yours (as the 'expert EE') or the customer who ultimately has to live with the amplifier in his system? I trust you can see where I'm going with this....
More importantly, would you be entitled to a refund?
Lol - that's a genuine condition, which some undoubtedly suffer from. However, I don't think that being a skeptical/inquisitive/free-thinking type, who's willing to trust his own faculties over those of an 'expert', when it *could* be advantageous to do so, qualifies them as such.
For example, I pay you to build me an amplifier, and when I get it, in many ways I'm delighted with it, but to my ears, and in the context of my system, it produces too much bass. You disagree, because it measures perfectly on your test equipment - and you're adamant about that. For you, it's 'transparent'.
I'm equally adamant that it's bass-heavy.
In that scenario, whose opinion matters most: yours (as the 'expert EE') or the customer who ultimately has to live with the amplifier in his system? I trust you can see where I'm going with this....
There are many similar instances in life, not just in audio, where the opinion of an expert shouldn't just automatically be 'obeyed' ;)
Marco.
I see your point Marco, but I don't think it's a very good analogy.
If everyone who listened to your amp didn't hear the same fault as you, would you not have to at least consider that maybe there was nothing wrong with the amp at all, and that you needed to get your hearing checked?
:eyebrows:
It's also a not very helpful analogy here because when it comes down to it, the sound we all like is different, and therefore subjective.
The report I posted says something interesting which touches on this:
"Interestingly, the people at greater risk of becoming polarized over climate change are those who perceive themselves as intelligent and scientifically literate."
(Note this applies to both poles)
R
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
More importantly, would you be entitled to a refund?
Lol! :D
Marco.
More importantly, would you be entitled to a refund?
That would depend on who built the amp. I understand that there is a certain amp builder who must not be named here who would probably scream abuse at you and tell you that you had used the wrong cables and so should go take a running f*ck at the moon.
:lol:
I see your point Marco, but I don't think it's a very good analogy.
If everyone who listened to your amp didn't great the same thing as you, would you not have to at least consider that maybe there was nothing wrong with the amp at all, and that you needed to get your hearing checked?
Sorry, Robert, I disagree. I think it's a perfectly good analogy for demonstrating that the opinion of an 'expert' shouldn't always be taken as final.
It's also a not very helpful analogy here because when it comes down to it, the sound we all like is different, and therefore subjective.
And in some ways, so is whether 'global warming' has undoubtedly been caused as a result of man's abuse of the planet ;)
The report I posted says something interesting which touches on this:
"Interestingly, the people at greater risk of becoming polarized over climate change are those who perceive themselves as intelligent and scientifically literate."
(Note this applies to both poles)
Absolutely, and I agree with that; indeed I can see evidence of it from all parties in this debate.
Marco.
That would depend on who built the amp. I understand that there is a certain amp builder who must not be named here who would probably scream abuse at you and tell you that you had used the wrong cables and so should go take a running f*ck at the moon.
:lol:
Yes, but it's usually best not to 'poke' sociopaths! ;)
Marco.
First, its an effect, not a condition, its part of being human, which you said before you are 100%.
Ok, but some will be controlled by it more than others.
However, some things are not subjective, and because of Dunning Kruger, if we are not qualified to argue a position, we wont know that we are not qualified to have a opinion, so mistakenly believe we have a valid opinion, and so mentally promote ourself to the same position as an actual expert on the subject.
A good point, but IMO, everyone's opinion, on any subject, is 'valid', simply because of their human right to think how they want to think. However, that doesn't mean that their opinion has any basis in fact.
If we stifled or ignored everyone's opinion we decided was 'invalid', simply because they weren't an 'expert' on the subject the opinion was formed from, we'd end up creating a society of people 'programmed' to think the same way - and you know where that leads to, and certainly nowhere I'd want to live.... It also neatly ties in with my forum signature! ;)
In terms of the bit in bold, above, whilst undoubtedly that does happen with some people, I wouldn't use it as an excuse to stifle free-thinking, whether the free-thinker in question was an 'expert' or not. At the end of the day, we'll all free to listen to or ignore whom we please, but I'll use my own judgment criteria for that, not that of an 'expert'.
And of course the same problem means we are incapable of knowing who the expert is, so human nature tends to makes us chose the expert that we agree with...
Indeed, so that being the case, why not just 'agree with ourselves' in the first place, and be done with it? :D
;)
Marco.
Feck - I've just edited your post, instead of quoting it! :doh:
Sorry, that's what happens when you're trying to do two things at once (listening to someone else in the room whilst typing)... I'll try and fix it, but hopefully you'll get my point.
Marco.
Ok, but some will be controlled by it more than others.
But because of DK, those that are more controlled by it are less aware of the fact.
A good point, but IMO, everyone's opinion, on any subject, is 'valid', simply because of their human right to think how they want to think. However, that doesn't mean that their opinion has any basis in fact.
If we stifled or ignored everyone's opinion we decided was 'invalid', simply because they weren't an 'expert' on the subject the opinion was formed from, we'd end up creating a society of people 'programmed' to think the one way - and you know where that leads to, and certainly not somewhere I'd want to live.... It also neatly ties in with my forum signature!
In terms of the bit in bold, above, whilst undoubtedly that does happen with some people, I wouldn't use it as an excuse to stifle free-thinking, whether the free-thinker in question was an 'expert' or not. At the end of the day, we'll all free to listen to or ignore whom we please, but I'll use my own judgment criteria for that, not that of an 'expert'.
Its almost as if we needed to produce a method of creating and validating "experts" such that we could mitigate the problems of human nature as much as possible. What shall we call it? Maybe something like "The Scientific Method" :-)
Indeed, so that being the case, why not just 'agree with ourselves' in the first place, and be done with it?
Because some things matter more than others. If the topic is what cable to use, then lack of facts is just fine. If its the possibility of rendering the earth incapable of supporting our civilization, then maybe we might want to apply a higher standard of proof to that one.
Oldpinkman
22-04-2016, 13:21
Lol - that's a genuine condition, which some undoubtedly suffer from. However, I don't think that being a skeptical/inquisitive/free-thinking type, who's willing to trust his own faculties over those of an 'expert', when it *could* be advantageous to do so, qualifies them as such.
For example, I pay you to build me an amplifier, and when I get it, in many ways I'm delighted with it, but to my ears, and in the context of my system, it produces too much bass. You disagree, because it measures perfectly on your test equipment - and you're adamant about that. For you, it's 'transparent'.
I'm equally adamant that it's bass-heavy.
In that scenario, whose opinion matters most: yours (as the 'expert EE') or the customer who ultimately has to live with the amplifier in his system? I trust you can see where I'm going with this....
There are many similar instances in life, not just in audio, where the opinion of an expert shouldn't just automatically be 'obeyed' ;)
Marco.
This of course, is the debate about "HiFi" or "audiophile". If the amp is neutral objectively, but bass heavy in your system, it suggests the rest of your system is bass heavy, and you need a bass-light (or bright) amplifier to balance it. You are of course entitled to your observations and preferences. But that doesn't make the expert "wrong" - as one component cannot anticipate every possible use of it when selecting its balance.
Its probably not a great analogy in the context of this thread - or reliance on experts in general.
But it begs another thread about which HiFi approach you prefer. As a user, you prefer the "I'll balance my own system approach". My preference has always been to have every component strive for "neutral" rather than balance a bass heavy item with a bass light one. Both methods can produce a correct overall tonal balance. Both methods can provide a result pleasing to the owner. But the "2 wrongs to make a right" method involves having a wrong - actually 2 wrongs. This is where, going full circle back to experts, focussing on the physics helps to aim for neutral and no detail loss (it may not always succeed of course). But in principle, you either work with the laws of the universe or insist they can be bypassed. And if you work with them, then you produce neutral products and a coherent and flexible approach to system development - where you just try for fidelity - as high as possible. My PT pimping relies on trying to understand what's going on, and "following the rules" in devising the design (I "phone a friend" of course for this - who has based his career on the same approach, and has a tad more understanding). If it fails, it is likely to be due to a mistake in interpretation of how the rules will operate, or a limitation of practical design, rather than that the fundamental laws of the universe are wrong.
Its almost as if we needed to produce a method of creating and validating "experts" such that we could mitigate the problems of human nature as much as possible. What shall we call it? Maybe something like "The Scientific Method" :-)
:eyebrows: :eyebrows:
Because some things matter more than others. If the topic is what cable to use, then lack of facts is just fine. If its the possibility of rendering the earth incapable of supporting our civilization, then maybe we might want to apply a higher standard of proof to that one.
Yes, but the point is that, as you correctly say: "And of course the same problem means we are incapable of knowing who the expert is, so human nature tends to makes us chose the expert that we agree with...".
If that is true, and I've no doubt it is, then in the end we're simply going to agree with the expert opinion that most aligns with ours, so why seek the opinion of an expert in the first place, if all we're ultimately going to do is agree with ourselves? :D
I'm of course being facetious, but the point is, there are many instances in life where we'd be just as well to think what we like without worrying about the opinions of experts, although I'm not saying that the thread's original topic is one of them.
Marco.
This of course, is the debate about "HiFi" or "audiophile". If the amp is neutral objectively, but bass heavy in your system, it suggests the rest of your system is bass heavy, and you need a bass-light (or bright) amplifier to balance it.
Not at all. That *may* have been the case, but define "neutral objectively". What exactly does that mean, and is it beyond being questioned?
It could equally have been that the test equipment, used by the EE, wasn't able to reveal an inherent effect of the amplifier, which the customer successfully identified in their system. Not everything that is genuinely heard can be measured.
You need to get your head around the fact that science/measurements currently don't have the answer to everything [and neither does Owen]! ;)
Marco.
Oldpinkman
22-04-2016, 14:29
Not at all. That *may* have been the case, but define "neutral objectively". What exactly does that mean, and is it beyond being questioned?
It could equally have been that the test equipment, used by the EE, wasn't able to reveal an inherent effect of the amplifier, which the customer successfully identified in their system. Not everything that is genuinely heard can be measured.
You need to get your head around the fact that science/measurements currently don't have the answer to everything [and neither does Owen]! ;)
Marco.
You're changing the rules. You defined it as "bass heavy" - tonally inaccurate. Not "some subtle aspect", not something subject to interpretation, and not necessarily the be all and end all, but your parameter.
Music is a wiggle. It is a vibration of air waves. Recording tries to copy and store that vibration. On a vinyl LP that copy is an "analogue" - a physical copy of the original shrunk smaller and stored on a different media. Recording shrinks and stores. Playback tries to read and restore or amplify. But the process is to copy the original into the recording and extract the original from the recording. Its like using a pantograph to copy a picture as I did as a kid. The final result is bigger or smaller, but an analogue of the original. If it has a loose joint you may get a picture you think prettier, but it won't be the same. And once your loose joint has lost that information - your analogue is changed forever - and anything the next stage does with it cannot recover what was lost from the stage before. Using another defective pantograph might produce a pleasing result, but it is an alternative representation, and no longer a copy
That's the "fidelity" bit of Hi Fidelity. We have another word for that wobbly joint copy. We call it distortion.
Anyway, you like the results you get, and I like the results I get, and we don't need to bicker about it. And for the record I wouldn't get Owen to design a record player modification (apart from the control electronics). I'll let Arthur do that. ;)
I'm very disappointed that no-one has said they like my photo.
*sigh
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I'm very disappointed that no-one has said they like my photo.
*sigh
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
A truly lovely photo Robert, of one of the genuine pioneers and heavyweights in his field. As you say, he is indeed a very charismatic and charming man, with a very sharp sense of humor.
Walter Munk? That's a name I haven't heard in quite a while. Apparently, still alive and kicking..At 98.
You're changing the rules. You defined it as "bass heavy" - tonally inaccurate. Not "some subtle aspect", not something subject to interpretation, and not necessarily the be all and end all, but your parameter.
I'm not changing any rules, Richard. I defined the amplifier as "bass-heavy", simply in the context of a fictional user's system. It was an unquantifiable subjective observation.
It could therefore have been "bass-heavy" because of other components in the system making it appear so, or because the user dislikes (genuine) heavy bass, and seeks something to ameliorate that, or (including a multitude of other things), it could be that what's been measured as "neutral objectively", wasn't, when tested in a 'real world' situation.
Audio is not quite as simple (or 'black or white') as you seem to think.
Anyway, you like the results you get, and I like the results I get, and we don't need to bicker about it. And for the record I wouldn't get Owen to design a record player modification (apart from the control electronics). I'll let Arthur do that. ;)
No 'bickering' here, merely friendly debate. The point is, with all due respect, I don't need to consult a 'pet expert' to have my opinions on hi-fi validated (as you often appear to, whether said 'pet expert' is Arthur or Owen)... :eyebrows: ;)
Marco.
A truly lovely photo Robert, of one of the genuine pioneers and heavyweights in his field. As you say, he is indeed a very charismatic and charming man, with a very sharp sense of humor.
Walter Monk? That's a name I haven't heard in quite a while. Apparently, still alive and kicking..At 98.
Thanks John.
:)
Walter is still working!
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I was so shocked to see that he is still alive and active, I even misspelled his name...
That's the "fidelity" bit of Hi Fidelity. We have another word for that wobbly joint copy. We call it distortion.
Not exactly true.A closer analogy to the wobbly joint would be a non linear transfer function. The effect of that we call distortion. An extra level of indirection from what you describe. But you can correct a non linear transfer function by applying its inverse (why push pull stages cancel even order distortion), or by use of feedback to create the inverse function in real time (the inaccuracy of the inverse function is one way of explaining the creation of higher order harmonic distortion). Your wobbly joint is closer to noise than distortion as we expect it to loose information, which distortion generally doesn't.
walpurgis
22-04-2016, 15:46
I'm very disappointed that no-one has said they like my photo.
I like it.
Always appreciate a decent piccie. Quite good at 'em myself when I can be bothered to make an effort.
I like it.
Always appreciate a decent piccie. Quite good at 'em myself when I can be bothered to make an effort.
make the effort!
Thank you.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/global-snapshot-shows-how-humans-are-greening-the-earth/7346382
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 10:37
Can't we have a bit of banter without aggression?
Is this post also tongue in cheak, pretending that the names "Michael Fish" and "John Kettley" are aggressive swear words? :lol:
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 12:03
No, if you read post #172, all is explained there. It's about what is justifiably (and that's the key word here) considered as 'delusional', and what isn't, and crucially, who gets to be the judge - and that can apply to many different subjects, not just climate change.
Marco.
I would still say that these are completely different in nature and of course the difference in seriousness is massive. The comparison just doesn't work other than on a purely verbal level.
Cables are about a subjective experience, involving the brain and the world the brain creates regardless of the external stimuli - there is no real way for any individual to assertain whether their brain's reaction is to a real external stimulus or to thoughts and belief. We can try with groups and studies to average out the reactions but still it all remains subjective and the experience of the individual can not be called delusional. Their interpretation of the experience can of course be said to be "wrong" but that's a different thing.
Climate change is about interpretting a vast amount of objective data. Those conclusions can be wrong.
There is so much data however, in so many different fields and with so many different resultant effects that so far man-made climate change is the only theory that fits ALL the data. People do make claims of different theories, interpretations of the data, but (if you look at the authors of those alternative theories) they are open to accusations of being motivated by something other than finding out what is really happening, some want to keep the status quo of the oil industry (such as the various Koch brother funded lobby groups, sometimes using off-shore company registration to hide their funding - why, unless it was underhand?) some just out of hatred of an imagined left-wing agenda of loony environmentalists who want to force people to change their way of life (you see that in their past activity, opinions, activities) .. But yet each time those alternative theories fail to explain some other piece of evidence/data that contradicts it. It's always a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, causing people to make bad and dangerous decisions.
It is still valid though to say that you think the theory of man-made climate change is wrong but one will have to provide some real evidence that cannot be disproven easily by research or data already taken. It gets to a point though with these debates that people are really wasting your time with those theories because they have ALREADY been expressed and have ALREADY been shown to contradict the evidence. Lay people just go over old ground again and again like a global cicular argument (just in places like this forum, the circle is so large that is appears to be a straight line as if we're headed somewhere..).
Now, lets get the point - what is delusional and what is not.
delusion
Pronunciation: /dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n/
noun
1 An idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder: the delusion of being watched
Note the important point in that Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word; "despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument"
The idea that ALL scientists, all climate scientists (a separate sub-set) who say that the theory of man-made climate change is the only one that fits are ALL corrupt, are ALL lying in order to grab cash for their research is both contracted by reality and contradicted by rational argument. The rational argument part is the most valid - such a massive conspiracy and yet amongst all these thousands upon thousands of scientists there is not one honest person who believes that scientific truth is more important than government funding?? To believe in this conspiracy is BY DEFINITION delusional. It's there in black and white in the Oxford dictionary.
Anyone who takes offense at the word "delusional" in such a debate really needs to take a closer look at it's meaning and the arguments presented. It's more of a factual definition, coldly definitional - it is not personal unless one chooses to take it so.
Those offended need instead to present a case as to why their theory is NOT contradicted by reality nor rational argument.
Stupidly, if we don't use the word and instead replace it with it's defintion, no-one is likely to be offended . :mental: such a crazy world the human world.
I some just out of hatred of an imagined left-wing agenda of loony environmentalists who want to force people to change their way of life (you see that in their past activity, opinions, activities) ..
The idea that ALL scientists, all climate scientists (a separate sub-set) who say that the theory of man-made climate change is the only one that fits are ALL corrupt, are ALL lying in order to grab cash for their research is both contracted by reality and contradicted by rational argument. The rational argument part is the most valid - such a massive conspiracy and yet amongst all these thousands upon thousands of scientists there is not one honest person who believes that scientific truth is more important than government funding?? To believe in this conspiracy is BY DEFINITION delusional. It's there in black and white in the Oxford dictionary.
.
Sadly it is not imagined. There are many people who subscribe fanatically to the view that humankind needs to be changed, even at gunpoint, if necessary. Some of those people are scientists.
Then you have the 'useful idiots' (usually 'nice guys' who don't understand why the world is the way it is and think it would not be too difficult for us all to 'just get along') who have not seriously considered the implications of this but jump on the bandwagon anyway.
Consider - 26 million people voted Conservative at the last election - was this a conspiracy? did they all get together and agree to vote Conservative? No, of course not, but for whatever reasons of their own they all went in that direction.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 12:12
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-26/global-snapshot-shows-how-humans-are-greening-the-earth/7346382
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Man-made climate change is a greater concept than many people seem to take it as.
The Earth has it's own balancing mechanisms to a point - plants grow and turn carbon dioxide into organic matter.
Humans disrupt this balancing mechanism by deforestation, expansion of urbanisation, expansion of industrialisation and then of course releasing that carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere through burning it.
Even if it weren't for the human production of carbon dioxide by releasing the carbon dioxide the earth stored millions of years ago (i.e. coal, oil etc) we'd still be causing global warming by disrupting the Earth's natural counter mechanisms.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 12:24
sadly it is not imagined. There are many people who subscribe fanatically to the view that humankind needs to be changed, even at gunpoint, if necessary. some of those people are scientists.
Then you have the 'useful idiots' (usually 'nice guys' who donlt understand why the world is the way it is and think it would not be too difficult for us all to 'just get along') who have not seriously considered the implications of this but jump on the bandwagon anyway.
Consider - 26 million people voted Conservative at the last election - was this a conspiracy? did they all get together and agree to vote Conservative? No, of course not, but for whatever reasons of their own they all went in that direction.
I'd argue that the scientists that may be in that group are informed by their own evidence and the evidence they have access to (it's available to lay people too - but it's a lot effort for normal people to bother with, buying New Scientist or a publication like that is too much for most, let alone getting to the raw data or research).
The move to blaming lay people instead of scientists is a completely different argument! It's changing the subject away from the theory that all climate change scientists are corrupt and taking cash backhanders. ALL climate scientists! Even a theory saying that it is just the majority who are corrupt is contradicted by rational argument and evidence.
I would agree that most people, including those 26 million of Conservative voters are ignorant of most things when being asked to make a decision politically or informing their opinion on something like climate change. That includes me and includes you and includes everyone in this thread unless you can show otherwise that you have specific personal knowledge and have conducted research, gathered your own data (in which case you're wasting your time here and should be doing something more important perhaps).
The very same applies to those who so aggressively push AGAINST the idea of man-made climate change. They are just as ignorant of the data and facts and often just repeat verbatim what they have been told - same is for both sides if you are talking about lay people.
But I stress, this is an aside away from the conspiracy theory that all climate change SCIENTISTS are lying and are taking cash bribes. It is that theory which is devoid of rationality.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 12:55
The link in the middle of Robert's last posted article is interesting in itself.
It answers the question how we know that it is carbon dioxide derived from human activity and not natural sources. Quick answer: changing ratios of different isotopes of Carbon and changing ratios of atmostpheric oxygen/carbon dioxide which reflect activities of burning fossil fuels, not photosynthesis or other natural sources.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/14/3452867.htm
Consider - 26 million people voted Conservative at the last election
11.33 million, actually.
That's 11.33m officially brainwashed idiots, then! ;)
Marco.
I would still say that these are completely different in nature and of course the difference in seriousness is massive. The comparison just doesn't work other than on a purely verbal level.
Cables are about a subjective experience, involving the brain and the world the brain creates regardless of the external stimuli - there is no real way for any individual to assertain whether their brain's reaction is to a real external stimulus or to thoughts and belief. We can try with groups and studies to average out the reactions but still it all remains subjective and the experience of the individual can not be called delusional. Their interpretation of the experience can of course be said to be "wrong" but that's a different thing.
Climate change is about interpretting a vast amount of objective data. Those conclusions can be wrong.
There is so much data however, in so many different fields and with so many different resultant effects that so far man-made climate change is the only theory that fits ALL the data. People do make claims of different theories, interpretations of the data, but (if you look at the authors of those alternative theories) they are open to accusations of being motivated by something other than finding out what is really happening, some want to keep the status quo of the oil industry (such as the various Koch brother funded lobby groups, sometimes using off-shore company registration to hide their funding - why, unless it was underhand?) some just out of hatred of an imagined left-wing agenda of loony environmentalists who want to force people to change their way of life (you see that in their past activity, opinions, activities) .. But yet each time those alternative theories fail to explain some other piece of evidence/data that contradicts it. It's always a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing, causing people to make bad and dangerous decisions.
It is still valid though to say that you think the theory of man-made climate change is wrong but one will have to provide some real evidence that cannot be disproven easily by research or data already taken. It gets to a point though with these debates that people are really wasting your time with those theories because they have ALREADY been expressed and have ALREADY been shown to contradict the evidence. Lay people just go over old ground again and again like a global cicular argument (just in places like this forum, the circle is so large that is appears to be a straight line as if we're headed somewhere..).
Now, lets get the point - what is delusional and what is not.
Note the important point in that Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word; "despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument"
The idea that ALL scientists, all climate scientists (a separate sub-set) who say that the theory of man-made climate change is the only one that fits are ALL corrupt, are ALL lying in order to grab cash for their research is both contracted by reality and contradicted by rational argument. The rational argument part is the most valid - such a massive conspiracy and yet amongst all these thousands upon thousands of scientists there is not one honest person who believes that scientific truth is more important than government funding?? To believe in this conspiracy is BY DEFINITION delusional. It's there in black and white in the Oxford dictionary.
Anyone who takes offense at the word "delusional" in such a debate really needs to take a closer look at it's meaning and the arguments presented. It's more of a factual definition, coldly definitional - it is not personal unless one chooses to take it so.
Those offended need instead to present a case as to why their theory is NOT contradicted by reality nor rational argument.
Stupidly, if we don't use the word and instead replace it with it's defintion, no-one is likely to be offended . :mental: such a crazy world the human world.
That's way too long to get into, Sam, and I simply don't have the time. Are you allergic to the definition of the word 'concise'? ;)
Anyway, in terms of the notion of 'delusional', my basic point is that I object to any unqualified person referring to me in that way, no matter the subject, (especially, as is often the case in the likes of cable debates, it's coming from some dweeb on the Internet, who knows less than nothing about me as a person), and who's therefore grossly unqualified to judge me like that.
Simples!
Marco.
That's 11.33m officially brainwashed idiots, then! ;)
Marco.
Ha! You'll get no argument from me on that!
Oldpinkman
29-04-2016, 13:46
Sadly it is not imagined. There are many people who subscribe fanatically to the view that humankind needs to be changed, even at gunpoint, if necessary. Some of those people are scientists.
Then you have the 'useful idiots' (usually 'nice guys' who don't understand why the world is the way it is and think it would not be too difficult for us all to 'just get along') who have not seriously considered the implications of this but jump on the bandwagon anyway.
Consider - 26 million people voted Conservative at the last election - was this a conspiracy? did they all get together and agree to vote Conservative? No, of course not, but for whatever reasons of their own they all went in that direction.
That's not really a fair comparison at all, and I suspect you are not daft and know it
26 million people "bought" the conservative offering. If there was a conspiracy, or sheep mentality it was to follow. They were "buyers"
The conspiracy you allege among the scientific community is not for them all to be conned, but all to be conning. They are, according to you the "sellers of the lie" not the buyers of it.
26 million people thought the conservatives were the lesser of 2 evils for probably 26 million different reasons. Those 26 million people didnt organise together to present false data to
hold on
I've lost track
what exactly is it these scientists get out of pretending the planet is warming due to greenhouse gasses when its not really? :scratch:
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 14:31
what exactly is it these scientists get out of pretending the planet is warming due to greenhouse gasses when its not really? :scratch:
Probably the same as they were getting thirty years ago, when they told us we were approaching another 'ice age'. Which would be political support and funding! So there!! ;)
what exactly is it these scientists get out of pretending the planet is warming due to greenhouse gasses when its not really? :scratch:
Okay - I will try to explain again as some not really getting it. My fault, probably.
1) There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist' - there are scientists of various disciplines and specialities, some of which are relevant to the study of the planet's climate. there is no-one who is an expert in the entire area of planetary climate.
2) Not all scientists who have a related discipline agree that man made carbon emissions are having a catastrophic effect on the climate - some of them may be corrupt i.e in the pay of 'big oil - most are not. They are asking rational questions and presenting rational objections - this is called 'peer review'
3) Some of the scientist who say that man made carbon emissions are having a catastrophic effect on the climate are/were corrupt. This is proven. Most are not
4) Those of you who have looked into the subject in detail (which so far appears to be just me) will know that the issue is far from clear cut and there are arguments/evidence for and against. Although you may read in the mainstream media 'all scientists agree' and 'the science is settled' these statements are completely untrue.
5) it is difficult to avoid the fact that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% over 25 years and temperatures have not increased at all (allowing for the 0.5 degree margin of error) - this torpedoes the 'it is simple physics' argument.
6) many, many lies have been told about the impact of 'climate change' and many catastrophic predictions, going back 25 years, have been made which have turned out to be sheer fantasy and scaremongering - this alone should have any intelligent person suspecting a rat.
7) There is no 'scientific conspiracy' but many scientists are too willing to accept what other scientists say without question, simply because they respect other scientists, and because their discipline is only tangentially connected with climate research, or not connected at all. Also plenty of scientists disagree with the conclusions but do not speak out because they do not want the aggravation.
8) Some scientists hold fairly extreme political views. They see catastrophic climate change as a weapon to use in their fight against global capitalism. It does not actually matter to them if it is real or not, as the end justifies the means. For them it is an idealogical battle. This is not all scientists involved but there are a lot of them and they are vocal and active.
9) If it is real are we doing anything credible about it? The answer is no. Current UK energy policy is to close all the power stations and rely on windmills and nuclear, backed up by fields full of diesel generators. Which is absurd. Landowners are doing very well out of it, poor people are doing badly as their bills are a lot higher because of it. The global climate is unaffected either way. This is either crass stupidity, a scam, or a little of both.
10) where you stand on this issue probably reflects your world view. it is interesting that those arguing that it is all true and we need to act now also want to remain in the EU - that is not a coincidence. Generally these are people who believe that mankind can evolve and that we can build a better world if we all pull together.
People like me take a more realistic (some will say cynical) view: that the world does change but you cannot change it; although history demonstrates that you can certainly make a lot of people very miserable and dead by trying; and that therefore we just carry on as we are and if it goes bad, well then it goes bad, and we will worry about it then.
Probably the same as they were getting thirty years ago, when they told us we were approaching another 'ice age'. Which would be political support and funding! So there!! ;)
So, just to make sure I have this right. They are (all) saying that its man made global warming, as that means they keep their jobs. But if they decided (individually, or on mass) to make a firm and consistent argument that fitted the available data then their funding would be cut off and there would be no other wealthy interest groups ready and waiting to fund them?
This is where from my perspective its hard not to view the "there is no MMGW position" as delusional and or paranoid.
So, just to make sure I have this right. They are (all) saying that its man made global warming, as that means they keep their jobs. But if they decided (individually, or on mass) to make a firm and consistent argument that fitted the available data then their funding would be cut off and there would be no other wealthy interest groups ready and waiting to fund them?
This is where from my perspective its hard not to view the "there is no MMGW position" as delusional and or paranoid.
See what I just posted above. it is not a dialectic argument.
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 14:55
Dunno why you quoted me to say that. I just implied that political support and funding are attractive to scientists/researchers.
I dont have the energy to go through all your points, but just a couple of comments
1. Yep, thats how Science works, thousands of specialists with overlaps. There is not really any such thing as a Physicist, there are hundreds of specialist areas, but useful physics gets done and the field progresses.
2. Yep, thats what peer review is, but the important thing is science is based on numbers, "not all", "some" and "most" are not informative, the sentence could sound different if number were inserted (made up numbers, but just to prove the point, its still the same as your statement) "0.1% of scientists who have a related discipline agree that man made carbon emissions are not having a catastrophic effect on the climate - 45% of them may be corrupt i.e in the pay of 'big oil - 55% are not. They are asking rational questions and presenting rational objections - this is called 'peer review'.
3. "Some" and "most" again, lets try "1% of the scientist who say that man made carbon emissions are having a catastrophic effect on the climate are/were corrupt. This is proven. 99% are not" And I think your are trying to equate the "most" in 2 and 3 as having equivalent value, whereas there is not reason to believe that.
4. "Those of you who have looked into the subject in detail" - Hmm, 1. seems to suggest there is no one who has done that, only individual specialists, or are you suggesting you are the exception?. "'all scientists agree'", ok a new word to add to the list, maybe 99% of scientists agree some dont, again, thats how science works, doesn't mean the bulk are wrong.
5. "and temperatures have not increased at all" So you keep saying, but the numbers show otherwise.
6. "many" again.
7. New word, "plenty" is that more than "many"? "Also 0.1% scientists disagree with the conclusions..."
8. "some"
9. Not a argument either way as far as I can see.
10. May be a true observation, you could put various tags onto the perspective (BTW, you seem to be making a dialectic argument there). I agree, I prefer to be a optimist.
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 15:22
I'm going to have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit.
It's time for my afternoon wank.
Marco.
I dont have the energy to go through all your points, but just a couple of comments
1. Yep, thats how Science works, thousands of specialists with overlaps. There is not really any such thing as a Physicist, there are hundreds of specialist areas, but useful physics gets done and the field progresses.
2. Yep, thats what peer review is, but the important thing is science is based on numbers, "not all", "some" and "most" are not informative, the sentence could sound different if number were inserted (made up numbers, but just to prove the point, its still the same as your statement) "0.1% of scientists who have a related discipline agree that man made carbon emissions are not having a catastrophic effect on the climate - 45% of them may be corrupt i.e in the pay of 'big oil - 55% are not. They are asking rational questions and presenting rational objections - this is called 'peer review'.
3. "Some" and "most" again, lets try "1% of the scientist who say that man made carbon emissions are having a catastrophic effect on the climate are/were corrupt. This is proven. 99% are not" And I think your are trying to equate the "most" in 2 and 3 as having equivalent value, whereas there is not reason to believe that.
4. "Those of you who have looked into the subject in detail" - Hmm, 1. seems to suggest there is no one who has done that, only individual specialists, or are you suggesting you are the exception?. "'all scientists agree'", ok a new word to add to the list, maybe 99% of scientists agree some dont, again, thats how science works, doesn't mean the bulk are wrong.
5. "and temperatures have not increased at all" So you keep saying, but the numbers show otherwise.
6. "many" again.
7. New word, "plenty" is that more than "many"? "Also 0.1% scientists disagree with the conclusions..."
8. "some"
9. Not a argument either way as far as I can see.
10. May be a true observation, you could put various tags onto the perspective (BTW, you seem to be making a dialectic argument there). I agree, I prefer to be a optimist.
It is not possible to put numbers or percentages on these things as the specific research does not exist. The point of my post was to demonstrate that it is not as simple as conspiracy/no conspiracy and that attempts to paint my argument as such are either a bit dim-witted or deliberate attempts to sabotage the debate.
As regards 4) I was referring to people posting on this thread.
Oldpinkman
29-04-2016, 15:52
Probably the same as they were getting thirty years ago, when they told us we were approaching another 'ice age'. Which would be political support and funding! So there!! ;)
Do you mean they'd stop getting it, we'd just stop looking at climate, stop weather forecasting, NASA would launch the next shuttle at 3.30 on tuesday even in a hurricane...
It was good to give an answer , but I'm not greatly persuaded. Thats a paranoia too far.
But remember - just because you're (that should be one is) paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you (that should be one too)
Gosh - doesn't language get confusing - much easier in French. On dirait
:D
Oldpinkman
29-04-2016, 15:55
It's time for my afternoon wank.
Marco.
Remember not to leave any tissues around. Arthur kept referring to my "wank rag" the last time I was down, and it took me most of the afternoon to cotton on. The bearing spilled oil when I moved it, and I had wiped it up with a bit of kitchen roll, which I had left untidily in the back of the car cos it had been pissing down with rain at the time.
Very funny Arthur.
:rolleyes:
Oldpinkman
29-04-2016, 15:57
Okay - I will try to explain again as some not really getting it. My fault, probably.
4) Those of you who have looked into the subject in detail (which so far appears to be just me) will know that the issue is far from clear cut and there are arguments/evidence for and against. Although you may read in the mainstream media 'all scientists agree' and 'the science is settled' these statements are completely untrue.
.
You make some interesting assumptions. I'm not referring to me btw
Remember not to leave any tissues around. Arthur kept referring to my "wank rag" the last time I was down, and it took me most of the afternoon to cotton on. The bearing spilled oil when I moved it, and I had wiped it up with a bit of kitchen roll, which I had left untidily in the back of the car cos it had been pissing down with rain at the time.
Very funny Arthur.
:rolleyes:
Hehehehe.... Good to see that the old chap still has a sense of humour! :eyebrows:
Marco.
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 16:40
Do you mean they'd stop getting it, we'd just stop looking at climate, stop weather forecasting, NASA would launch the next shuttle at 3.30 on tuesday even in a hurricane...
It was good to give an answer , but I'm not greatly persuaded. Thats a paranoia too far.
But remember - just because you're (that should be one is) paranoid, doesn't mean they are not out to get you (that should be one too)
Gosh - doesn't language get confusing - much easier in French. On dirait
:D
Blimey! Another one who didn't get what I was saying and launches into a speech. ;)
It is not possible to put numbers or percentages on these things as the specific research does not exist. The point of my post was to demonstrate that it is not as simple as conspiracy/no conspiracy and that attempts to paint my argument as such are either a bit dim-witted or deliberate attempts to sabotage the debate.
But in general as lay people it is that simple, the choice is:
1. Climate change is happening and its caused by the things humans are doing to the environment, if we don't reduce our emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, then we will enter into a period where the feedback loops in the environment change the place we all live such that some with be inconvenienced, but the majority of habitats and the animals that live there, including humans will either die in great number or become extinct. Large areas will become incapable of supporting human life, the food supply will be drastically reduced and generally the earth will be less of a good place to live.
or
2. Climate change is not happening, there is nothing to see here move along.
Depending on what action if any we take, the outcome is between 1 and 2, but if we take no action believing 2, then the result will likely be 1.
Not every scientist says the above, and its more complex than the above, but as shareholders in the earth, that would be the bullet points at the end of the power point presentation. We either do nothing (2) and hope/believe that nothing will change, or believe that we need to take action. I don’t see where there is space for grey in that.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 17:11
That's way too long to get into, Sam, and I simply don't have the time. Are you allergic to the definition of the word 'concise'? ;)
Anyway, in terms of the notion of 'delusional', my basic point is that I object to any unqualified person referring to me in that way, no matter the subject, (especially, as is often the case in the likes of cable debates, it's coming from some dweeb on the Internet, who knows less than nothing about me as a person), and who's therefore grossly unqualified to judge me like that.
Simples!
Marco.
Shame you don't have time to read it - your answer had no relation to what I wrote.
I didn't know there was a requirement to be concise! That often leads to simplifications which then cause confusion and misunderstanding. Being black and white about a very grey situation is one way of being "concise" for example, but the result ends up being useless .
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 17:15
That's not really a fair comparison at all, and I suspect you are not daft and know it
26 million people "bought" the conservative offering. If there was a conspiracy, or sheep mentality it was to follow. They were "buyers"
The conspiracy you allege among the scientific community is not for them all to be conned, but all to be conning. They are, according to you the "sellers of the lie" not the buyers of it.
26 million people thought the conservatives were the lesser of 2 evils for probably 26 million different reasons. Those 26 million people didnt organise together to present false data to
hold on
I've lost track
what exactly is it these scientists get out of pretending the planet is warming due to greenhouse gasses when its not really? :scratch:
Apparently their wages and continued work. Apparently if they don't lie then they can no longer be scientists and they're on the doll. So it's slavery essentially, apparently. Sounds like they wouldn't be to blame but be victims of a terrible regime. And a phantom regime at that - not sure who their "overlords" would be exactly.. Must be the Rothschilds? Or no, they'd be more likely to lobby the opposite.. hmmm, not sure then.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 17:19
attempts to paint my argument as such are either a bit dim-witted or deliberate attempts to sabotage the debate.
Well that's nice... So you're saying people in this thread are stupid or nasty/corrupt?
Hmmm... isn't that bad form for the AoS forum? At least my poorly told and therefore poorly received joke was a joke and no malice behind it.
There are a couple of other options to add to your two (EDIT - a couple and a half option):
3 - you're not making your position clear enough
(3.5 - or you're not entirely clear on your position, it's just a kind of instinct, feeling )
4 - your position is changing as the debate ensues (p.s. that's a good thing, that's what debate is for. )
So let us say the dangers are real and ignore the fact that a little warmer is better than a little colder and that the increased CO2 gives greater crop yields and establish what we would actually need to do.
We would have to cut man-made CO2 emissions almost completely. Without an alternative source of power - which we don't have except for nuclear and that is off the table in most places anyway, that means cutting our energy use by 90% plus. Assuming we don't also introduce population control that will mean a radical reduction.
So - no more petrol or diesel vehicles and no more electric ones unless totally powered by the sun or the wind. Emergency services, the army and the government would be exempt. (Under current plan rich people can also get around this by buying Carbon Credits). So say goodbye to your car and motorbike/scooters. Pushbikes or walking for the rest of us.
Not good news for the automotive industry and those who work in it but needs must.
Your home will need to be powered by solar too - if you can't run it of solar you won't be able to run it at all. No solar or the money to install it? Live somewhere dark for most of the year? Bad luck. Even with solar you will have to curtail your use of power in the home considerably
Industry - essentials would keep going, otherwise if you just make widgets like hi-fi then forget it - because of the limitations on power use and motor vehicles the whole global economy will change out of all recognition, so even if you were allowed to use power then there will no longer be a mass-market for your goods. Hardly anyone will have work.
Indeed it will be necessary to end entirely the whole current structure of society. We will all still need to be fed so there will be set rations that you collect with a chit/swipecard/mark of the beast style embedded chip
All governments of the world will need to agree this - no rogue states or folk will flock there. And it will have to be monitored to make sure no-one is craftily using a coal fired power station on the quiet.
I think the survivors would envy the dead.
And don't tell me that we can replace all our power needs with windmills and solar because we just can't. Either we come up with a safe, zero emission power source as good as or better than fossil fuels or we are going to be carrying on as before regardless of how many scientists say we shouldn't. And that is the current position, except that some lucky few are making a mint on the back of the wind and solar and the government get to control our lives some more. Which suits them fine.
Well that's nice... So you're saying people in this thread are stupid or nasty/corrupt?
Hmmm... isn't that bad form for the AoS forum? At least my poorly told and therefore poorly received joke was a joke and no malice behind it.
There are a couple of other options to add to your two (EDIT - a couple and a half option):
3 - you're not making your position clear enough
(3.5 - or you're not entirely clear on your position, it's just a kind of instinct, feeling )
4 - your position is changing as the debate ensues (p.s. that's a good thing, that's what debate is for. )
I was speculating as to their motives. I suppose in reality they are seeing a point of view they disagree with and are attempting to check it with the least possible effort.
My position is complex, as is the subject. I have nothing invested in this personally. I just think that simplistic and /or dialectic viewpoints like 'the science is settled' should be challenged.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 17:49
But in general as lay people it is that simple, the choice is:
1. Climate change is happening and its caused by the things humans are doing to the environment, if we don't reduce our emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, then we will enter into a period where the feedback loops in the environment change the place we all live such that some with be inconvenienced, but the majority of habitats and the animals that live there, including humans will either die in great number or become extinct. Large areas will become incapable of supporting human life, the food supply will be drastically reduced and generally the earth will be less of a good place to live.
Don't forget resource wars long before places become uninhabitable.
There is strong argument to link the Arab Spring to global climate events, not a direct result but an event to push people over the edge.
Essentially the trigger for the first events in Tunisia and Egypt came about in a large part to a sudden and massive hike in food prices, bread prices. This was caused massive down turn in global wheat harvest in 2010/2011 -China had a massive drought, Russian harvest was down due to drought and heat waves (37%) Ukraine (20%), unusually wet and cold weather caused 19% lower harvest in Canada, too much rain in Australia caused output to go down 8%. That is climate change, hence the term used, not just global warming.
This caused a rising disatisfaction to escalate into a full blown revolt and overthrow of government in those countries. The food costs caused similar revolts in turn in other countries..
Trace the results of that drought and the Arab Spring: Syria + ISIS, ISIS in Iraq, terrorism in Europe, refugee crisis, situation in Yemen.... Libya.
There needs be no imagination of the results of man-made climate change! That is not to say that anyone does nor can claim with any certainty that the above was due to man-made climate change, but is a result of local climate change events in general. Suffice to say that if man is further causing climate change, the first results seen will be more conflict.
Just googling around for the those percentage figures, pulled up another interesting factor in Syria: a long running drought from 2006 - 2010 caused migration within Syria from rural communities into the cities. Poverty increased. Assad didn't handle the drought at all, wasn't prepared yet still continued to plunder the state's wealth for his own use. So uprising and civil war was just around the corner off the back of drought in rural areas.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 17:53
I think the survivors would envy the dead.
You speak for yourself!
I'm happy going camping and have been to a festival camping in a desert in 50 degree heat. Best festival I've been to.
As you say none of those events were attributable to man made CO2 emissions so not sure of the relevance?
Droughts and crop failures can cause social unrest. On a totally speculative basis CO2 increase could cause more of these?
As I argued above if you are concerned about social unrest the cure for 'climate change' is worse than the disease (which we might not even have).
Shame you don't have time to read it - your answer had no relation to what I wrote.
I didn't know there was a requirement to be concise! That often leads to simplifications which then cause confusion and misunderstanding. Being black and white about a very grey situation is one way of being "concise" for example, but the result ends up being useless .
Just try and use fewer words, to get the same message across. You know you can do it ;)
At the moment, you've taken Pinky's crown from him for 'Captain of Verbosity', and the poor chap's distraught about it! :eyebrows:
Marco.
So let us say the dangers are real and ignore the fact that a little warmer is better than a little colder and that the increased CO2 gives greater crop yields and establish what we would actually need to do.
So to summarise (To help Marco's reading) Because we cant do everything we should do nothing?
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 18:52
Just try and use fewer words, to get the same message across. You know you can do it ;)
At the moment, you've taken Pinky's crown from him for 'Captain of Verbosity', and the poor chap's distraught about it! :eyebrows:
Marco.
He's swapped tactics and summed up what I tried to say to Macca in a much better way.
I like verbosity.
I like verbosity.
You might, but the point is you want folk to read and digest properly what you've written, don't you, rather than skimming through it and missing the point you were making/misconstruing it, or more likely losing the will to live after the third sentence! ;)
My advice would be to make fewer points in the one post, and be more selective with the arguments you're trying to win. That will both reduce your tendency to ramble, and your posts coming across somewhat as tonight's 'Sermon from Sam' - all said with the best of intentions :)
Marco.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 19:13
As you say none of those events were attributable to man made CO2 emissions so not sure of the relevance?
Droughts and crop failures can cause social unrest. On a totally speculative basis CO2 increase could cause more of these?
As I argued above if you are concerned about social unrest the cure for 'climate change' is worse than the disease (which we might not even have).
You've mis-represented what I said and what is said about those events. No-one can show clear proof that they are due to man-made climate change. That is distinctively different to claiming that they definately were not, as you have now re-translated it through your prism of opinion.
That global warming does cause local climate changes is totally undisputed! Global warming of any kind increases the energy in the global weather and heat exchange systems. The result of that extra energy is higher swings in energy movements = more extreme conditions = greater droughts, greater rainfall elsewhere, stronger and more frequent hurricans and typhoons, deeper winters. It is established to be the case, it is not speculative.
The cure you outlined above is already happening off people's own backs and is beneficial to many places taking action. See the changes China is making in adopting renewable energy sources, see what's happening in Germany with entire towns going off grid and ending up with a surplus of energy generated by their own local renewables. In Germany it has been possible long enough to become established only because the state passed laws decades ago to allow competition in the energy market, breaking down energy company monopolies over the supply chain. It is happening in Germany already because the state has heavily invested in and set clear goals for renewable energy generation.
The consequences you outline would be some stress scenario being badly managed. Why would all that have to happen so quickly? I tell you why - because people like you will be arguing and trying to convince people that there is nothing wrong so that no action will be taken until it's too late and yes, your prophecy will come true, of your own making. But you won't have to suffer the consequences as it will likely happen after your life time...
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 19:19
or more likely losing the will to live after the third sentence! ;)
Presuming that wasn't a personal insult saying that what I say is so bad (stupid? incomprehensible? whiney? dunno...) ;) perhaps some people just aren't cut out for debate about anything serious? It is said that most people don't read long copy any more in news papers or online and that's why stuff gets dumbed down. Average reader stops about a third of the way down a website article. I'm not like that - if I'm interested, I will read very long articles and absorb as much as I can.
I guess long posts separate the men from the boys (or the bots as I just mis-typed) ;)
No personal insult intended, Sam. I'm just trying to help, by offering some friendly and constructive advice, based on the feedback I've received from people about your style of posting - and we've discussed this already.
However, carry on as you wish. Do remember though, that this is a forum, where the accent is on having FUN (by keeping things light and not too serious), not a formal debating society.
Marco.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 19:29
I just think that simplistic and /or dialectic viewpoints like 'the science is settled' should be challenged.
To say "That is wrong and simplistic" or something to that effect is NOT challenging it. It's as effective at challenging it as a fart in a lift. It might bring the conversation to and end but nothing is ever settled.
If you want to challenge it then give some competing and convincing evidence.
The evidence presented arguing against the theory of either climate change in general or man-made climate change (there seem to be two different camps, the later seemingly defeated on the first so ended up having to move to a more nuanced argument) is often precisely as you have said yourself : simplistic and/or dialectic . Those theories are often debunked quite quickly and shown to be a simplistic twisting of a little knowledge of a subject. When the fuller picture is seen and presented, their arguments disolve away.
Problem is that even when those anti-climate change arguments have been fully debunked, they are repeated and repeated until the noise drowns out the truth.. and so the myth is passed on and the numbers convinced by it grow. Classic propoganda propogation of anything becoming true if it is repeated often enough by different sources... despite it being debunked long long ago.
Audio Advent
29-04-2016, 19:32
No personal insult intended, Sam. I'm just trying to help, by offering some friendly and constructive advice, based on the feedback I've received from people about your style of posting - and we've discussed this already.
However, carry on as you wish. Do remember though, that this is a forum, where the accent is on having FUN (by keeping things light and not too serious), not a formal debating society.
Marco.
What are the consequences for having a serious conversation on AoS? Will a few jokes thown in increase the fun quota and offset anything?
I didn't really think it was a personal insult - just that it could be interpreted that way by someone who did take things personally easily. :cool:
Anyway, perhaps bear in mind what I've said? That's all I ask :)
Marco.
So to summarise (To help Marco's reading) Because we cant do everything we should do nothing?
Yes. Added to which it is far from certain that we need to do anything. Even if the threat is real the cure is impossible to achieve and will only cause increased suffering by attempting to implement it.
You've mis-represented what I said and what is said about those events. No-one can show clear proof that they are due to man-made climate change. That is distinctively different to claiming that they definately were not, as you have now re-translated it through your prism of opinion.
That global warming does cause local climate changes is totally undisputed! Global warming of any kind increases the energy in the global weather and heat exchange systems. The result of that extra energy is higher swings in energy movements = more extreme conditions = greater droughts, greater rainfall elsewhere, stronger and more frequent hurricans and typhoons, deeper winters. It is established to be the case, it is not speculative.
The cure you outlined above is already happening off people's own backs and is beneficial to many places taking action. See the changes China is making in adopting renewable energy sources, see what's happening in Germany with entire towns going off grid and ending up with a surplus of energy generated by their own local renewables. In Germany it has been possible long enough to become established only because the state passed laws decades ago to allow competition in the energy market, breaking down energy company monopolies over the supply chain. It is happening in Germany already because the state has heavily invested in and set clear goals for renewable energy generation.
The consequences you outline would be some stress scenario being badly managed. Why would all that have to happen so quickly? I tell you why - because people like you will be arguing and trying to convince people that there is nothing wrong so that no action will be taken until it's too late and yes, your prophecy will come true, of your own making. But you won't have to suffer the consequences as it will likely happen after your life time...
If we accept that I am wrong about zero carbon power not being able to cope then I agree some gradual shift to such a future as you describe in Germany - although you paint a rosier picture than I can accept - otherwise the Germans would not be building new coal-fired power plants - which they are.
But - Everything I have read to date inclines me to believe that I am right about renewable energy not being sufficient by any means.
Haselsh1
29-04-2016, 20:47
One of the things that amuses me the most about this supposed global warming and something that has been stated many times is that most of the Earth's ice has already displaced its own volume of water so obviously when it melts there will be no increase in water level. The only ice that will add to the overall level of the seas is that which is land locked. This whole scenario is outrageous scaremongering.
Haselsh1
29-04-2016, 20:48
It is totally speculative...!
Haselsh1
29-04-2016, 20:51
Hahaha...! There is as much proof of global warming as there is for the existence of a God. There may well be evidence but even that is very tenuous.
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 21:03
[FONT=Tahoma]most of the Earth's ice has already displaced its own volume of water so obviously when it melts there will be no increase in water level.
As a slight aside. I wonder if the extra bouyancy of the salt sea water compared to fresh water has any impact on this, when one considers that the larger pieces of glacial ice that constantly enter the sea as icebergs is from fresh water sources.
One of the things that amuses me the most about this supposed global warming and something that has been stated many times is that most of the Earth's ice has already displaced its own volume of water so obviously when it melts there will be no increase in water level. The only ice that will add to the overall level of the seas is that which is land locked. This whole scenario is outrageous scaremongering.
From memory if all of the land based ice was to melt - that is Antarctica and Greenland - it would mean a 70 foot increase in average global sea level. Which is quite a bit.
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 21:47
From memory if all of the land based ice was to melt - that is Antarctica and Greenland - it would mean a 70 foot increase in average global sea level. Which is quite a bit.
The West Country would become a big peninsula and the east of England would probably consist of large islands.
The West Country would become a big peninsula and the east of England would probably consist of large islands.
no change there then ;)
I'm fairly high up so will have the slow lingering death as opposed to the quick drown.
last prediction I saw was for 6 inches or 6 feet, depending which model was right
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 22:43
Found this:
http://i64.tinypic.com/aoao1e.jpg
It gives an idea.
I'll be a lot closer to the seaside :)
I see Scotland was again irrelevant
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
walpurgis
29-04-2016, 23:05
I see Scotland was again irrelevant
Just totally submerged. Sorry about that. ;)
(it was the only map I found)
I noticed on the many maps and globes on display in the Vatican that Scotland was either missing altogether or very badly drawn.
Yes, that's where Badly Drawn Boy got their name from.
Marco.
Yes, that's where Badly Drawn Boy got their name from.
Marco.
Learn something new every day.. Bewildibeast eh?
Yes, that's where Badly Drawn Boy got their name from.
Marco.
I'm going to start a band called Badly Drawn Scotland.
It's a name with legs.
rectorydp
30-04-2016, 11:06
One of the things that amuses me the most about this supposed global warming and something that has been stated many times is that most of the Earth's ice has already displaced its own volume of water so obviously when it melts there will be no increase in water level. The only ice that will add to the overall level of the seas is that which is land locked. This whole scenario is outrageous scaremongering.
Like all floating objects, sea ice displaces its own weight (not volume). Sea water is actually about 2.6% more dense that freshwater (the ice is mainly freshwater) so there will be an increase in sea level if it melts but not a large amount.
Much more important are the ice sheets and ice shelves. It is estimated that if the Antarctic ice sheets melted, sea level would rise by approximately 58m! The Greenland ice sheet would cause a rise of about 6m.
Floating ice shelves impede the flow of melting continental ice and so loss in these area could allow more water to flow off the land.
The mean annual temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by up to 3.2°C in the past 60 years contributing to the collapse of some of the smaller ice shelves (British Antarctic Survey).
The mean annual temperature in the Antarctic Peninsula has risen by up to 3.2°C in the past 60 years contributing to the collapse of some of the smaller ice shelves (British Antarctic Survey).
No, you are out by a factor of ten:
The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that Observational studies have presented evidence of pronounced warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, but little change over the rest of the continent during the last half of the 20th century.[17] Chapman and Walsh[10][18] note that "Trends calculated for the 1958–2002 period suggest modest warming over much of the 60°–90°S domain. All seasons show warming, with winter trends being the largest at +0.172 °C per decade while summer warming rates are only +0.045 °C per decade. The 45-yr temperature trend for the annual means is +0.082 °C per decade corresponding to a +0.371 °C temperature change over the 1958–2002 period of record. Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates, with trends calculated using start dates prior to 1965 showing overall warming, while those using start dates from 1966 to 1982 show net cooling over the region." Several scientific sources[19][20] have reported that there is a cooling trend observed in the interior of the continent for the last two decades of the 20th century, while the Antarctic Peninsula shows a warming trend.
rectorydp
30-04-2016, 12:57
No, you are out by a factor of ten:
The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report states that Observational studies have presented evidence of pronounced warming over the Antarctic Peninsula, but little change over the rest of the continent during the last half of the 20th century.[17] Chapman and Walsh[10][18] note that "Trends calculated for the 1958–2002 period suggest modest warming over much of the 60°–90°S domain. All seasons show warming, with winter trends being the largest at +0.172 °C per decade while summer warming rates are only +0.045 °C per decade. The 45-yr temperature trend for the annual means is +0.082 °C per decade corresponding to a +0.371 °C temperature change over the 1958–2002 period of record. Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates, with trends calculated using start dates prior to 1965 showing overall warming, while those using start dates from 1966 to 1982 show net cooling over the region." Several scientific sources[19][20] have reported that there is a cooling trend observed in the interior of the continent for the last two decades of the 20th century, while the Antarctic Peninsula shows a warming trend.
No, I specified the Antarctic Peninsula and it related to the collapse of some of the smaller ice shelves. It is true that it is about 10 times the global average but that is not the point I was making.
rectorydp
01-05-2016, 09:54
Fair point, my bad.
No problem :)
Fair point, my bad.
It's not really on surely for you to try to use an IPCC report to argue your case, is it, Martin??
Earlier in the thread you dismissed the IPCC as being propaganda, or liars, or I can't remember exactly what, but basically you dismissed them because you knew better and it was inconvenient for your position to have to deal with the temperature they were reporting.
So you can't really quote from their reports, shurely?? Play the game at least...
Unless you're just a huge troll on the issue, which is what I am starting to suspect.
[emoji3]
Anyway, here is another link to a something written by some scientists who have been studying (full time and all!) for more than nine years (LOL!)
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/briefing-papers/towards-a-unifying-narrative-for-climate-change---grantham-briefing-paper-18.php
I think you should bow out again, Martin, or at least read some of this stuff.
LOL
[emoji12] [emoji12] [emoji12] [emoji12]
ROFLMAOCOPTER
You couldn't make it up.
R x
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I guess it did not occur to you that if the IPCC - famous for exaggerating their case, say there has only been .3 degree warming in the Antarctic the reality is probably a lot less.
Try harder.
Try harder.
Sorry Martin, but you're just too rude and dismissive. There's not really any point.
In near on forty pages of this thread you have put forward nothing to support your argument apart from "but that's not true", "I know better", and "it's sad that you are so duped."
I'm sure it's very entertaining for you, but it's not really an argument is it?
[emoji12] [emoji3] [emoji12] [emoji3] [emoji12] [emoji3] [emoji12] [emoji3] [emoji12] [emoji3] [emoji12]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
On the contrary I have presented much evidence and argument. Do you have a response, for example, to the e-mails from the UEA CRU that I liked to earlier in the thread?
All you have attempted ridicule. I get bored with that which is why I left it the first time but then Sam (I think) re-started the thread.
I have no investment in this other than wanting the truth, and there is no doubt that some politicians and scientists are not interested in the truth but are pursuing an agenda which they hope will result in major social and economic changes.
I don't like to see that supported/propogated on my little corner of the interweb, so I present counter arguments that will hopefully lead to those who have so far blindly accepted the official position on climate change as 'fact' thinking a little harder about it. Not necessarily changing their mind but at least realising there are two sides to the coin.
Sorry Martin, but you're just too rude and dismissive. There's not really any point.
This neatly highlights the problem of debating on a forum with someone you don't know, and how the 'emotionless' written word can so easily be misconstrued, as Martin is one of the least rude and dismissive people you could meet!
However, I agree that's how he's sometimes come across in this debate, partly I suspect out of frustration (as you also no doubt feel, Robert, towards Martin's input), with his opponent in the debate failing to 'get' properly where he's coming from, or seemingly being stubborn-headed - but that's what happens in these types of threads, and why I generally stay away from them ;)
So, guys, have we reached the point now when it's probably best just to 'agree to disagree', and move on as friends, before you both fall out? I really don't think that there's any more mileage in continuing this debate, as both of you have pretty entrenched views on the subject :)
Marco.
On the contrary I have presented much evidence and argument. Do you have a response, for example, to the e-mails from the UEA CRU that I liked to earlier in the thread?
All you have attempted ridicule. I get bored with that which is why I left it the first time but then Sam (I think) re-started the thread.
I have no investment in this other than wanting the truth, and there is no doubt that some politicians and scientists are not interested in the truth but are pursuing an agenda which they hope will result in major social and economic changes.
I don't like to see that supported/propogated on my little corner of the interweb, so I present counter arguments that will hopefully lead to those who have so far blindly accepted the official position on climate change as 'fact' thinking a little harder about it. Not necessarily changing their mind but at least realising there are two sides to the coin.
You haven't Martin, and you have ignored everything that has been linked to.
The UEA emails were awful but an isolated incident which you try to say discredits work from everyone else.
The IPCC has made one mistake (about the Himalayan glaciers) that was immediately corrected, and you use this to say it is a discredited organization.
You don't allow anyone to quote any research at all because you just say it is discredited, and yet you somehow are allowed to quote research that your special knowledge has judged to be okay.
Marco I am sure you know Martin to be different, but in this thread he has been consistently rude by dismissing anyone as not understanding as well as he does.
He dismisses respected scientists who have dedicated their lives to this and claims to understand better from his own selective reading.
It's not just a difference of opinion, Marco. Martin is plain wrong and has delusions about the limits of his understanding. I have been trying to show on here how climate scientists (yes it's a thing!) are attempting to address the issue, but it just gets ignored. There is no point!
It's terribly sad really, especially after I actually believed the "i am willing to be proved wrong" line. But, I won't accept being told it's just a difference of opinion, and I can't accept being told that my sister is a liar by a pub-wit on a hifi forum.
With all due respect for the hifi forum, of course.
[emoji48] [emoji12] [emoji3] [emoji48]
http://youtu.be/zKhEw7nD9C4
Ok, I think there's some misunderstanding on both sides, but as it's getting way too personal now, you're not giving me much option but to close the thread, so I'm pretty much insisting that you both 'agree to disagree' and move on.
Please bear that in mind before you respond again, Robert, if you choose to do so. The same also applies to Martin. Hint: what I'm looking for now, from BOTH of you, is something along the lines of: 'Ok, Marco, I hear ya. Let's leave it there' ;)
Otherwise it's thread closure time, folks, because this pointless circular argument has gone on for long enough!
Marco.
pp 26-28 of this document discusses some of the problems being encountered by everyone in this thread... It really is worth looking at, no matter what your view of the subject.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/policy_commissions/Communication-climate-science/Communication-climate-science-report/TIME_FOR_CHANGE_Final_Proof.pdf
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Oldpinkman
03-05-2016, 11:32
How dull. I could have sworn this was for the lock-up. I have a track record to maintain you know, even though I didn't really start this thread (I am a ghost writer) and haven't participated that much, it feels a shame to spoil a near 100% track record of locked threads
Tantt Piss
as we say in France :D
People get all het up about boxes and wires, so it's perhaps unsurprising that feelings run high when discussing possible threats to human life. The secret is to stay calm when discussing anything, accept that some people will not be convinced by what you say, even if they understand it. On this issue, I'm on the side of the vast majority of scientists, because they have studied the data, but I don't mind if other people don't share that view.
Certainly no bad feelings from me towards Robert or anyone else. It has been a robust debate, which is the best kind. There's nothing more boring than agreement :)
And on that note, gents, I think we should bring this one to a close :)
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.