Australian Politics Forum - Not "climate change"

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53259
At my desk.

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #240 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 2:43pm

Grendel while you continue to focus on the battle between Al Gore and his counterparts from the opposite extreme, while ignoring the actual science and the scientists involved, you will only ever involve yourself with strawman arguments, and you will never get to the heart of the matter.

Nothing is being dismissed 'out of hand'. The arguments you copy and paste so fervently have clear and obvious logical flaws, which is why you simply go on to the next copy and paste rather than following through on any argument long enough to realise how silly they are.

For example, you still haven't explained how choosing a one year period from a temperature plot that is extremly variable over such a short time period, while ignoring the real trends, is 'right'. How is it any better than saying "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #241 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:03pm

Denialist Logic - Illustrated by example.

VILLAGER #1:
We have found a witch. May we burn her?
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!
BEDEVERE:
How do you know she is a witch?
VILLAGER #2:
She looks like one.
CROWD:
Right! Yeah! Yeah!
BEDEVERE:
Bring her forward.
WITCH:
I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
BEDEVERE:
Uh, but you are dressed as one.
WITCH:
They dressed me up like this.
CROWD:
Augh, we didn't! We didn't...
WITCH:
And this isn't my nose. It's a false one.
BEDEVERE:
Well?
VILLAGER #1:
Well, we did do the nose.
BEDEVERE:
The nose?
VILLAGER #1:
And the hat, but she is a witch!
VILLAGER #2:
Yeah!
CROWD:
We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!
BEDEVERE:
Did you dress her up like this?
VILLAGER #1 :
No!
VILLAGER #2 and 3:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
No.
VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
No.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes.
VILLAGER #2:
Yes.
VILLAGER #1:
Yes. Yeah, a bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
A bit.
VILLAGER #3:
A bit.
VILLAGER #1:
She has got a wart.
RANDOM:
[cough]
BEDEVERE:
What makes you think she is a witch?
VILLAGER #3:
Well, she turned me into a newt.
BEDEVERE:
A newt?
VILLAGER #3:
I got better.
VILLAGER #2:
Burn her anyway!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn her! Burn! Burn her!...
BEDEVERE:
Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
VILLAGER #1:
Are there?
VILLAGER #2:
Ah?
VILLAGER #1:
What are they?
CROWD:
Tell us! Tell us!...
BEDEVERE:
Tell me. What do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2:
Burn!
VILLAGER #1:
Burn!
CROWD:
Burn! Burn them up! Burn!...
BEDEVERE:
And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1:
More witches!
VILLAGER #3:
Shh!
VILLAGER #2:
Wood!
BEDEVERE:
So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3:
B--... 'cause they're made of... wood?
BEDEVERE:
Good! Heh heh.
CROWD:
Oh, yeah. Oh.
BEDEVERE:
So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1:
Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE:
Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #1:
Oh, yeah.
RANDOM:
Oh, yeah. True. Uhh...
BEDEVERE:
Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1:
No. No.
VILLAGER #2:
No, it floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1:
Throw her into the pond!
CROWD:
The pond! Throw her into the pond!
BEDEVERE:
What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1:
Bread!
VILLAGER #2:
Apples!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1:
Cider!
VILLAGER #2:
Uh, gra-- gravy!
VILLAGER #1:
Cherries!
VILLAGER #2:
Mud!
VILLAGER #3:
Uh, churches! Churches!
VILLAGER #2:
Lead! Lead!
ARTHUR:
A duck!
CROWD:
Oooh.
BEDEVERE:
Exactly. So, logically...
VILLAGER #1:
If... she... weighs... the same as a duck,... she's made of wood.
BEDEVERE:
And therefore?
VILLAGER #2:
A witch!
VILLAGER #1:
A witch!
CROWD:
A witch! A witch!...
VILLAGER #4:
Here is a duck. Use this duck. [quack quack quack]
BEDEVERE:
Very good. We shall use my largest scales.
CROWD:
Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh...
BEDEVERE:
Right. Remove the supports!
[whop]
[clunk]
[creak]

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Grendel

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #242 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:03pm

yawn

DWMT and everyone elses... there is NO PROOF of what you believe in. Even the modelling on which your belief is based is flawed and has not as yet predicted anything accurately.

Scientists have been wrong before and I have no doubt will be wrong again. Your belief is premised on the word "likely". So much for your credibility etc. I need more than just "likely"... don't you?

Now do give it a rest.

Funny muso... but I'd have thought it was more relevant to your side of the argument. There are none so blind muso... Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53259
At my desk.

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #243 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:12pm

Quote:

there is NO PROOF of what you believe in

That's a rather absurd statement to make Grendel. I believe we should take a rational risk management approach. This is a normative statement, not a positive one. It has nothing to do with proof. It is impossible to prove or disprove. The only positive claim I have made is that your arguments are illogical, and I have demonstrated that.

Quote:

I need more than just "likely"... don't you?

Risk management is all about dealing rationally with uncertainty. Refusing to act without certainty is irrational.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #244 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:30pm

Grendel wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:03pm:

yawn

DWMT and everyone elses... there is NO PROOF of what you believe in. Even the modelling on which your belief is based is flawed and has not as yet predicted anything accurately.

Scientists have been wrong before and I have no doubt will be wrong again. Your belief is premised on the word "likely". So much for your credibility etc. I need more than just "likely"... don't you?

Now do give it a rest.

Funny muso... but I'd have thought it was more relevant to your side of the argument. There are none so blind muso... Grin

Guess what? I don't need a f%^&^ general circulation model to confirm that CO2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic activities is getting us into trouble.

My conclusion is not based on the word 'likely'. It's based on solid scientific principles, data and observations.

That part is easy. The difficult part comes in determining exactly how much of an effect there will be. The biggest uncertainties are in the areas of albedo effects, clouds and aerosols.

You haven't even touched on the major uncertainties. You're still talking about temperature trends.

There are huge uncertainties for the the period between now and the end of the century, because so much depends on what course of action we take. That alone can make a difference of double the atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We know there are lags - in the past with natural systems, the main driver has always been the sun, because there hasn't been anything natural in recent times that has released huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. The sun drives global temperature which increases CO2 and we get a metastable equilibrium between CO2 and temperature.

Drive it with increasing CO2 and you still get a lag. Temperature lags behind increasing CO2. It's like taking up the slack on a car towed by a rope. Eventually the rope will tighten and the global temperature will catch up. The sea temperatures have even more of a lag than atmospheric temperatures.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #245 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:48pm A fact is hypothesis that is so firmly supported by evidence that we assume it is true, and act as if it were true. Douglas Futyuma
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

tallowood Gold Member Offline Израиль Навсегда Posts: 8547 Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #246 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:52pm So what is the date of the end if nothing is done?
Back to top	עַם יִשְרָאֵל חַי IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #247 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 4:00pm Well I for one am looking forward to your; definitive, ground-breaking, Nobel award winning, paper... muso. It appears you have never read much of what I've written on the topic at all muso... tsk, tsk, tsk... that'll teach you to skim and dismiss OOH stuff people tell you.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Not "climate change"
Reply #248 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 8:42pm

tallowood wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 3:52pm:

So what is the date of the end if nothing is done?

Tallow - Take your eschatology to the Spirituality thread. The end of the world is not nigh. The following is just my opinion, but I think that the human race will probably go on regardless of what happens, albeit at a lower population level but with a terrible legacy of widespread famines and horrific natural disasters in the 21st and 22nd centuries. Hopefully we'll still have a high level of technologies in our cities in 26th century Antarctica.

Grendel - Nothing you have posted here has been original. I've seen exactly the same unmitigated garbage in other internet forums.

35 years? Study?

However, I would like to talk to you about this bridge in Sydney that's going for a song.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 5:55am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53259 At my desk.	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #249 - Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:04pm You sound like Thomas Kuhn Muso, only less diplomatic.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #250 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 5:57am freediver wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2008 at 10:04pm: You sound like Thomas Kuhn Muso, only less diplomatic. You're right. Sometimes we see things differently in the clear light of morning.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #251 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 9:25am ROTFLMAO At yet another typical muso response... Not gonna win anyone over that way.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #252 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:07am Grendel wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 9:25am: ROTFLMAO At yet another typical muso response... Not gonna win anyone over that way. Good job you didn't see my original response.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #253 - Dec 3^rd, 2008 at 11:11am Nothing you say could surprise me oh egotistical one... mostly your responses are just ad hom after all.
Back to top	IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: Not "climate change" Reply #254 - Dec 4^th, 2008 at 8:17am What we do not like in ourselves usually manifests itself as our criticism of others. Think about it.
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged