PDA

View Full Version : Letters to a Heretic



OwlHoot
27th February 2011, 18:55
There's an interesting example here (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html) of a climate change dogmatist trying to browbeat skeptic Prof Freeman Dyson.

suityou01
27th February 2011, 19:12
There's an interesting example here (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html) of a climate change dogmatist trying to browbeat skeptic Prof Freeman Dyson.

What happened to the revelation that climate data had been falsified and emails bounding around from the pro agw scientists admitting this? How this even still has legs is beyond me, or rather I think I see only too clearly that the G20 want to fund future globalisation projects from carbon taxes.

Science has nothing to do with this any more. :rolleyes:

MarillionFan
27th February 2011, 19:25
There's an interesting example here (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html) of a climate change dogmatist trying to browbeat skeptic Prof Freeman Dyson.

Does it contain the words moron, bedwetter and village idiot. If not, I'm not interested.

thunderlizard
27th February 2011, 19:35
What happened to the revelation that climate data had been falsified and emails bounding around from the pro agw scientists admitting this? How this even still has legs is beyond me
Well,
let's say that I've never seen an elephant, so I don't believe in them. In order to convince me that elephants exist, you send me loads of photos of elephants. However, it turns out that one of the photos of elephants isn't genuine. It's a photo of an empty zoo cage, with a very realistic drawing of an elephant photoshopped into it. Maybe you knew that, and maybe you didn't. It still doesn't make all your other photos any less valid or convincing.

The UEA emails are interesting to some and might show some dodgy conduct, but they aren't essential to the whole debate.

TimberWolf
27th February 2011, 19:42
Well if next winter is going to be as cold as this and last winter, I'm emigrating somewhere warm. Either that or putting some heating on.

Anyone else not used their central heating yet?*




*only open to UK residents

AtW
27th February 2011, 19:43
Does it contain the words moron, bedwetter and village idiot. If not, I'm not interested.

You forgot word "cretin".

HTH

MarillionFan
27th February 2011, 19:45
You forgot word "cretin".

HTH

No. I knew you'd appear.

amcdonald
27th February 2011, 19:48
Well if next winter is going to be as cold as this and last winter, I'm emigrating somewhere warm. Either that or putting some heating on.

Anyone else not used their central heating yet?*




*only open to UK residents

That's because the warmists :winker: believe that colder winters are proof of global warming

EternalOptimist
28th February 2011, 01:50
Well,
let's say that I've never seen an elephant, so I don't believe in them. In order to convince me that elephants exist, you send me loads of photos of elephants. However, it turns out that one of the photos of elephants isn't genuine. It's a photo of an empty zoo cage, with a very realistic drawing of an elephant photoshopped into it. Maybe you knew that, and maybe you didn't. It still doesn't make all your other photos any less valid or convincing.


just to add a little to your analogy.

The people who send you the photos have never seen one either. They 'know' it exists because they have a computer model that proves that there are small animal, bigger animals, much bigger animals, so therefore there must be a VERY big animal.
plus they have found a great big massive heap of steaming sh1te. now, where did THAT come from. Its unprecedented, no animal EVER has produced such a heap. therefore there must be a big animal.

except we know that there did used to be big animals, we can prove it.

So there is a large area of doubt. Now you are admitting that these guys are dodgy to boot and they want £10000000000 ? for a cage

hmmm. I will wait till you catch one TL if its all the same to you



:rolleyes:

NotAllThere
28th February 2011, 09:28
Is Steve Connor - the science editor of the Independant - a scientist? Has he had any scientific training? I'd guess not, as he seems to be following the usual humanities degree approach to what scientific proof actually means, and what experimental evidence is.

In history, for example, the "truth" is determined by consensus. What most people who have studied it think, and agree is the truth of what happened. In science it's not. If it's verifiable or falsifiable, then evidence will show whether it's likely to be true. If it's neither - it isn't science.

I note that Steve Connor has a rather uncomplimentary entry in badscience.net

So - journalist vs scientist over a question of science. Journalist is a pillock for picking the fight.

DimPrawn
28th February 2011, 09:37
Well if next winter is going to be as cold as this and last winter, I'm emigrating somewhere warm. Either that or putting some heating on.

Anyone else not used their central heating yet?*




*only open to UK residents

I never turn my heating off+, it's stays on 24/7, 365*


+ oop north it is cold all year round, summer heatwave is 15 deg C for 2 days.
*except leap years.

BlasterBates
28th February 2011, 09:50
The question isn't has it been warming, the question is, is the warming natural.

The entire justification of the warming not being natural hinges on Michael Mann's hockey stick, the evidence in the paper using the trick to "hide the decline". i.e the proxies failed to pickup recent warming. Incidentally they also failed to pickup a particularly warm year in the 18th century, so the chances are it failed to pick up the warming 1000 years ago, which from Greenland ice core measurements looks like was a warmer period.

The global warming based on CO2 is complete BS until they can prove it wasn't warmer a 1000 years ago. Fiddling graphs isn't proof.

Their arguments aren't helped by the fact that we've had a solar maximum over the last 50 years, probably as there was 1000 years ago.

All the rest of the research is based on models, or simply observing warming which may be perfectly natural.

Doggy Styles
28th February 2011, 09:52
It's a bit nippy in London today, which proves it.

BlasterBates
28th February 2011, 12:44
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Hindu%20Times%205__540x300.jpg

Doggy Styles
28th February 2011, 15:15
That's a red rag to a bull.

One or two will be along in a minute.

thunderlizard
28th February 2011, 15:40
http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Hindu%20Times%205__540x300.jpg

Gosh! Thank goodness somebody is on hand to fill us in on what's been in the latest Hindustan Times. For my own copy of the Hindustan Times didn't arrive today - paper boy got a puncture while crossing the Bulgarian border again, I bet.

BlasterBates
28th February 2011, 16:18
Gosh! Thank goodness somebody is on hand to fill us in on what's been in the latest Hindustan Times. For my own copy of the Hindustan Times didn't arrive today - paper boy got a puncture while crossing the Bulgarian border again, I bet.

Yes no problem, glad to be of service. Interesting opinion though from a member of the IPCC.

thunderlizard
28th February 2011, 16:30
Has anyone ever said that global warming is a threat to humanity (as a whole, rather than just a threat to some humans)?

Churchill
28th February 2011, 16:33
Has anyone ever said that global warming is a threat to humanity (as a whole, rather than just a threat to some humans)?

The real question is "Does anyone give a sh!t?".

thunderlizard
28th February 2011, 16:34
no, the real question is "should anyone give a sh!t?".

shaunbhoy
28th February 2011, 16:36
Has anyone ever said that global warming is a threat to humanity (as a whole, rather than just a threat to some humans)?

Al Gore?

Churchill
28th February 2011, 16:37
no, the real question is "should anyone give a sh!t?".

Why?

We're only one of many species that have at one time flourished and then died out on this planet.

What comes next...?

thunderlizard
28th February 2011, 16:38
That is true. It is high time the lizards had another go.
:alien

EternalOptimist
28th February 2011, 16:40
Why?

We're only one of many species that have at one time flourished and then died out on this planet.

What comes next...?

I know this


the testiclopod

its a sort of one legged bollock that can live on a diet of thin batter and water laced with ammonia




:rolleyes:

Churchill
28th February 2011, 16:41
That is true. It is high time the lizards had another go.
:alien

They'd better be good swimmers! :wink

pjclarke
28th February 2011, 18:56
Interesting opinion though from a member of the IPCC.

Er, no. Khandekar is an 'IPCC Expert Reviewer' To become an IPCC expert reviewer what you have to do is this:-

(a) Request a copy of the draft report.

(b) Sign an NDA.

(c) That's it.

I could be an IPCC expert reviewer (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php), as could you. It means next to nothing and certainly does not confer IPCC membership. Indeed Khandekar is just another retired and discredited (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/gross_error_by_madhav_khandeka.php) academic. The only bodies who retain him as any kind of 'expert' are oil-funded astroturfing groups (http://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekar).

On the other hand the IPCC Working group on the science had over 700 contributing authors, every last one a practising and published climate scientist. Two years ago the Copenhagen congress consisted of 80 sessions, seminars and workshops (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/programme/ccfinalprogramme10032009.pdf/) each led by a practicing scientist or economist, mostly at Professorial level, and met to consider new evidence that had arisen since the IPCC 2007 report and gave us the message (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/)


Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised. For many key parameters, the climate system is already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived. These parameters include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, ocean and ice sheet dynamics, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events. There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts.


I thought one or two of these guys might know their stuff, but now I've read that devastating, detailed and utterly pursuasive rebuttal in the journal Hindustan Times I am reassured that we have absolutely nothing to be concerned about. What a relief :freaky:.

EternalOptimist
28th February 2011, 19:08
Er, no. To become an IPCC 'expert reviewer' what you have to do is this:-

(a) Request a copy of the draft report.

(b) Sign an NDA.

(c) That's it.

I could be an IPCC expert reviewer (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/you_too_can_be_a_distinguished.php), as could you. It means next to nothing and certainly does not confer IPCC membership. Indeed Khandekar is just another retired and discredited (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/05/gross_error_by_madhav_khandeka.php) academic. The only bodies who retain him as any kind of 'expert' are oil-funded astroturfing groups (http://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekar).

On the other hand the IPCC Working group on the science had over 700 contributing authors, every last one a practising and published climate scientist. Two years ago the Copenhagen congress consisted of 80 sessions, seminars and workshops (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/programme/ccfinalprogramme10032009.pdf/) each led by a practicing scientist or economist, mostly at Professorial level, and met to consider new evidence that had arisen since the IPCC 2007 report and gave us the message (http://climatecongress.ku.dk/newsroom/congress_key_messages/)



I thought one or two of these guys might know their stuff, but now I've read that devastating, detailed and utterly pursuasive rebuttal in the journal Hindustan Times I am reassured that we have absolutely nothing to be concerned about. What a relief :freaky:.

You would do well not to disrespect people you know nothing about. Treating them fairly is a basic human norm as well.



:rolleyes:

Cliphead
28th February 2011, 19:45
I keep asking this question, what's the worst that could happen?

Moscow Mule
28th February 2011, 19:51
I keep asking this question, what's the worst that could happen?

Have you seen Mad Max?

Cliphead
28th February 2011, 19:53
Have you seen Mad Max?

Is that all? I grew up in Glasgow :rolleyes:

Moscow Mule
28th February 2011, 19:54
Is that all? I grew up in Glasgow :rolleyes:

You'll be fine then.

You won't have many folk to talk to, but you should be alright.

Cliphead
28th February 2011, 19:57
You'll be fine then.

You won't have many folk to talk to, but you should be alright.

A bit like here then.

Moscow Mule
28th February 2011, 19:58
A bit like here then.


A bit, yes.

TimberWolf
28th February 2011, 20:02
If governments (and the IPCC) were serious about the issue (and didn't want to encourage less breeding either) they could get together and make a dash for Thorium. India, Norway, Brazil and the US would be laughing. 3 millions times as much energy per unit mass as coal and a lot less radiation overall. Do they look bovered?

sasguru
1st March 2011, 09:20
You would do well not to disrespect people you know nothing about. Treating them fairly is a basic human norm as well.



:rolleyes:

Why? I know nothing about you but am fairly sure you're a cretin of the first order.
And I treat you fairly, by occasionally responded to your inane drivel.

Ignis Fatuus
1st March 2011, 09:22
If governments (and the IPCC) were serious about the issue (and didn't want to encourage less breeding either) they could get together and make a dash for Thorium. India, Norway, Brazil and the US would be laughing. 3 millions times as much energy per unit mass as coal and a lot less radiation overall. Do they look bovered?If Thorium is better than Uranium for nuclear fission, why did everybody develop Uranium reactors and nobody develop Thorium reactors?

shaunbhoy
1st March 2011, 09:26
Why? I know nothing about you but am fairly sure you're a cretin of the first order.


That is you all over though sas. Drawing conclusions about things you know nothing about. Usually the wrong ones too. Then droning on and on about them as though them having passed through your primitive little collection of Logic Gates somehow bestows some relevance to your findings.

:laugh :laugh :laugh

TimberWolf
1st March 2011, 09:35
If Thorium is better than Uranium for nuclear fission, why did everybody develop Uranium reactors and nobody develop Thorium reactors?

I guess the uranium route was easier, plus uranium reactors made it easy to produce plutonium for making weapons.

EternalOptimist
1st March 2011, 09:56
Why? I know nothing about you but am fairly sure you're a cretin of the first order.
And I treat you fairly, by occasionally responded to your inane drivel.

shut it, mono-lobe



:rolleyes:

d000hg
1st March 2011, 10:45
I keep asking this question, what's the worst that could happen?I'd say that realistically, the West would be relatively unaffected since we have dull climates... it can get hotter or colder without getting extreme. We might have to adapt but lives are not at risk or overall standard of life. Perhaps more hurricanes in the US. Perhaps parts of Holland and London end up under water but this is gradual and can be managed.

It seems the big potential risks are marginal areas... land turning to desert, rain drying up, etc. Millions are already on a knife-edge of varying sharpness and they don't need much of a push for a calamity even if it is gradual.

The harsh fact is, the question "do we care" figures quite highly... a few £million on red noses isn't really going to cut it if a billion people need to be relocated.

BlasterBates
1st March 2011, 12:16
Of course we keep hearing there's going to be more droughts, hurricanes etc, but so far there is no discernible trend. Global precipitation levels measured by satellites haven't changed (if they had it would have been headline news). Some climate scientists claimed there were more hurricanes, but the statistics over the last 100 years, show no trend whatsoever, and there was a huge row about it as the hurricane experts said it was codswollop. Then they said the snow would disappear, and then they said the snow would come back again. Sea levels are basically rising at the snails pace level they've been rising since 17th century. The south pole has got slightly cooler. The only thing left in the basket of "evidence" is a bit of ice missing in the Arctic during September compared to 30 years ago, even the idea of a "tipping point" in the Arctic was thrown on the scrap heap recently.

Of course assuming the warming continues (which would be a change, because the globe stopped warming about a decade ago), why should dry places get drier and wet places get wetter? Judith Curry the climate scientist hit the nail on the head when she said "they don't know" some places will get worse some places will get better. According to the "theory" it's the temperate zones and the poles that are supposed to be most affected, not the tropical countries. Of course the scientists love to paint a picture of disaster. Fact is agricultural yields have been going up over the last 30 years.

shaunbhoy
1st March 2011, 12:32
Of course we keep hearing there's going to be more droughts, hurricanes etc, but so far there is no discernible trend. Global precipitation levels measured by satellites haven't changed (if they had it would have been headline news). Some climate scientists claimed there were more hurricanes, but the statistics over the last 100 years, show no trend whatsoever, and there was a huge row about it as the hurricane experts said it was codswollop. Then they said the snow would disappear, and then they said the snow would come back again. Sea levels are basically rising at the snails pace level they've been rising since 17th century. The south pole has got slightly cooler. The only thing left in the basket of "evidence" is a bit of ice missing in the Arctic during September compared to 30 years ago, even the idea of a "tipping point" in the Arctic was thrown on the scrap heap recently.

Of course assuming the warming continues (which would be a change, because the globe stopped warming about a decade ago), why should dry places get drier and wet places get wetter? Judith Curry the climate scientist hit the nail on the head when she said "they don't know" some places will get worse some places will get better. According to the "theory" it's the temperate zones and the poles that are supposed to be most affected, not the tropical countries. Of course the scientists love to paint a picture of disaster. Fact is agricultural yields have been going up over the last 30 years.

Yes but don't go getting too complacent BB. There are legions of compliant little numbercrunchers like sasguru beavering away to produce computer models and flawed statistics that will blow this whole evidence-based rationale out of what is left of the water!!

:rollin:

Doggy Styles
1st March 2011, 14:25
Jeremy Clarkson drove a big car from Canada to the north pole last summer.

I hope he didn't drown.

sasguru
1st March 2011, 14:39
Yes but don't go getting too complacent BB. There are legions of compliant little numbercrunchers like sasguru beavering away to produce computer models and flawed statistics that will blow this whole evidence-based rationale out of what is left of the water!!

:rollin:

You're just one of those bitter little men who weren't overly gifted in life's lottery, aren't you?
Thing is no one is really going to pay a lot of notice to your opinions, you're not one of life's movers and shakers, so just give it a rest and try to pay off your overdraft every month, there's a good chap.
:laugh:laugh
HTH

Doggy Styles
1st March 2011, 14:56
Does that graph start in the carefully selected date of 1980? The truth is, ice comes and goes all through history.

Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/)
What would NSIDC and our media make of a photo like this if released by the NAVY today? Would we see headlines like “NORTH POLE NOW OPEN WATER”? Or maybe “Global warming melts North Pole”? Perhaps we would. sensationalism is all the rage these days. If it melts it makes headlines.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uss-skate-open-water.jpg?w=510&h=306

It was that way again in 1962:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/seadragon-and-skate-north-pole-1962.jpg?w=510&h=324

And again in 1987:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/3-subs-north-pole-1987.jpg?w=510&h=278

But contrast that to thick ice again in 1999:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uss-hawkbill-north-pole-1999.jpg?w=432&h=324

I can extrapolate a decent upturned hockey stick from those pictures. :D

shaunbhoy
1st March 2011, 15:33
The usual frustrated pointless small man drivel.............

Back to those models numpty. And if you can't produce me a decent hockeystick graph before close of play then don't bother coming into tomorrow.

:laugh

BlasterBates
1st March 2011, 15:40
Can anyone here see a trend?

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE_oceanic_rainfall_2002_thru_Jan_2011.gif

The usual "codswallop" Global warming caused the Queensland floods. One question would be, what caused the Queensland floods in the last century? Second question if there was flooding in the past would you expect flooding to reoccur? and finally if you did expect it to reoccur how do you differentiate a Queensland flood caused by Global Warming from one not caused by Global Warming?

d000hg
1st March 2011, 16:14
A graph covering 9 years? How very informative.

BlasterBates
1st March 2011, 16:35
A graph covering 9 years? How very informative.

Yes, exactly, indeed it is.

These are anomalies with respect to the last 30 years of data, i.e. rain fall in the last 9 years has been around average of the last 30 years rainfall.

That means no trend for 30 years.

pjclarke
1st March 2011, 18:33
Does that graph start in the carefully selected date of 1980?

As I wrote, it covers the period since satellites were launched in 1979; measurements before then being less certain, for obvious reasons. But we don' want your steenkin' satellites with their millions of data points - we got four photos showing one point on one day - I think the implications are obvious. As somebody wrote once (http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/05/nasa-not-man-is-causing-arctic-sea-ice.html).

Data prior to the satellite era was analysed in Polyak et al 2010 (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/oce/mholland/papers/Polyak_2010_historyofseaiceArctic.pdf) and they found


The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.


This is the data from the last 100 years or so showing max summer and winter extent http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/polyakfig2.jpg?w=500&h=340

pjclarke
1st March 2011, 18:58
The usual "codswallop" Global warming caused the Queensland floods

Pay attention. I never made any such attribution. It is not possible to prove that GW caused any individual extreme event (nor to prove it did not). But like a loaded dice rolls more sixes, a warmer world is predicted to have more and more extreme weather events. Ask the insurance industry (http://www.munichre.com/app_pages/www/@res/pdf/media_relations/press_dossiers/cancun_2010/press_folder_cancun_2010_en.pdf)


The number of major weather-related natural
catastrophes has tripled since 1980, as has the
number of floods; windstorms have more than doubled
in number. The first nine months of 2010 saw the
second highest number of natural hazard events
relevant in claims terms since 1980.

shaunbhoy
1st March 2011, 19:24
Ask the insurance industry (http://www.munichre.com/app_pages/www/@res/pdf/media_relations/press_dossiers/cancun_2010/press_folder_cancun_2010_en.pdf)

Consistent arbiters of even-handed information dissemination. :laugh :laugh

pjclarke
1st March 2011, 20:12
Munich Re’s natural catastrophe database, the most comprehensive of its kind in the world, shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events. For instance, globally there has been a more than threefold increase in loss-related floods since 1980 and more than double the number of windstorm natural catastrophes, with particularly heavy losses as a result of Atlantic hurricanes

These guys (http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2010/2010_09_27_press_release.aspx) make their money out of correctly predicting risk, a powerful incentive to accumulate and analyse accurate data....

EternalOptimist
1st March 2011, 23:35
These guys (http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2010/2010_09_27_press_release.aspx) make their money out of correctly predicting risk, a powerful incentive to accumulate and analyse accurate data....

you fool.

that link is talking about weather events that result in insurance claims. Just because the number of weather related losses goes up, it doesnt mean the weather was any worse than normal.
There is one paragraph that expicitly states this.

If more people start to live in flood plains, more people will be flooded and make insurance claims. It says nothing at all about cagw, or more extreme weather.

in fact, using your logic, all extreme weather would be abolished if the insurance company went bust



do you ever read the plethora of links that you subject us to ? do you understand them ?



:rolleyes:

pjclarke
2nd March 2011, 01:19
That would be this paragraph...?


The rise in natural catastrophe losses is primarily due to socio-economic factors. In many countries, populations are rising, and more and more people moving into exposed areas. At the same time, greater prosperity is leading to higher property values. Nevertheless, it would seem that the only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change. The view that weather extremes are more frequent and intense due to global warming coincides with the current state of scientific knowledge as set out in the Fourth IPCC Assessment Report.

Or here's a whole press release (http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/company_news/2010/2010-08-05_company_news.aspx) on the topic from the same company


These facts show that global warming is playing a significant role in the rising number of extreme events. Analyses performed by Munich Re’s natural catastrophe database, the most comprehensive in the world, substantiate this increase: the number of extreme weather events like windstorm and floods has tripled since 1980, and the trend is expected to persist.

You fool. If the increased losses were solely due to changes in prosperity and populations shifts then there should not be a bias towards increased weather related disasters, as opposed to earthquakes, volcanoes etc, but there is. Dr. Peter Hoeppe, Head of the Geo Risks Research Department at Munich Re, writes (http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/23/the-year-of-living-dangerously-masters-weather-extremes-climate-change/)


For me the most convincing piece of evidence that global warming has been contributing already to more and more intense weather related natural catastrophes is the fact that while we find a steep increase in the number of loss relevant weather events (about tripling in the last 30 years) we only find a slight increase in geophysical (earthquake, volcano, tsunami) events, which should not be affected by global warming. If the whole trend we find in weather related disaster should be caused by reporting bias, or socio-demographic or economic developments we would expect to find it similarly for the geophysical events.

EternalOptimist
2nd March 2011, 06:40
In other news, other people and organisations that stand to profit by it, support CAGW, and people who stand to lose money, deny it.

anyone who thinks people with a vested interest are impartial, are deluded fools. sorry about that





:rolleyes:

sasguru
2nd March 2011, 09:32
In other news, other people and organisations that stand to profit by it, support CAGW, and people who stand to lose money, deny it.

anyone who thinks people with a vested interest are impartial, are deluded fools. sorry about that





:rolleyes:

You really are very stupid indeed. Seriously.
The insurance industry is a cold hard business,They are not likely to be taken in by any false claims on either side or they won't have a business.
That's why they hire actuaries to analyse the data.
So if you want to trust anyone in this debate, trust the money men - because where dosh is involved suddenly people start thinking very clearly.
Unlike some third rate unemployed IT jobber.

HTH

landl
2nd March 2011, 10:56
You really are very stupid indeed. Seriously.
The insurance industry is a cold hard business,They are not likely to be taken in by any false claims on either side or they won't have a business.
HTH

...which is also the reason that they are likely to exploit any excuse available to justify increases to the premiums that they charge their customers. The actuaries do a great job of informing them of the real perceived risks. The "money men" then decide what they can get away with to make as big a profit as possible.

I don't think the insurance companies are to be blindly and somewhat naively trusted on this one. Just my opinion.

PS - I'm not an idiot, but feel free to dismiss me anyway in the same manner that you have done with just about every person who has ever had a contrary opinion. A great attitude for personal growth I'm sure.

BlasterBates
2nd March 2011, 11:30
Temperature record of Arizona

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/screenhunter_17-feb-13-16-55.jpg?w=640&h=584

Can anyone see a natural 60 year cycle here?

EternalOptimist
2nd March 2011, 11:31
You really are very stupid indeed. Seriously.
The insurance industry is a cold hard business,They are not likely to be taken in by any false claims on either side or they won't have a business.
That's why they hire actuaries to analyse the data.
So if you want to trust anyone in this debate, trust the money men - because where dosh is involved suddenly people start thinking very clearly.
Unlike some third rate unemployed IT jobber.

HTH


History is made !! do you remember where you were when JFK was shot ? when a man stepped onto the moon or the wall came down ?
too young maybe ?

fear not. you were here when a new milestone was laid down in human history.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you SasGoru. <rounds of applause, standing ovations and nobel prizes>


We dont need measurements to prove CAGW
we dont even need models to prove CAGW
We dont need learned professors and scolars

all we need is an insurance salesman


- hey presto. I've seen the light

I'm saved. the planet is saved. long live Gaia



:rolleyes:

sasguru
2nd March 2011, 11:49
History is made !! do you remember where you were when JFK was shot ? when a man stepped onto the moon or the wall came down ?
too young maybe ?

fear not. you were here when a new milestone was laid down in human history.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you SasGoru. <rounds of applause, standing ovations and nobel prizes>


We dont need measurements to prove CAGW
we dont even need models to prove CAGW
We dont need learned professors and scolars

all we need is an insurance salesman


- hey presto. I've seen the light

I'm saved. the planet is saved. long live Gaia



:rolleyes:

What is it with all you ex-squaddies that you keep digging?
Tenacity is probably an admirable quality when defending against the enemy, but is mere asinine mulishness in this context.
You really are a moron. Seriously.

EternalOptimist
2nd March 2011, 11:52
What is it with all you ex-squaddies that you keep digging?
Tenacity is probably an admirable quality when defending against the enemy, but is mere asinine mulishness in this context.
You really are a moron. Seriously.

there are only two certainties in the roots of CAGW. CO2 and human stupidity
and I am not sure about the CO2
-EternalEinstein




:rolleyes:

sasguru
2nd March 2011, 11:53
Temperature record of Arizona

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/screenhunter_17-feb-13-16-55.jpg?w=640&h=584

Can anyone see a natural 60 year cycle here?

That's why the discipline of statistics was invented, so you don't have to judge things by eye.
Instead of posting drivel on here, take a course in basic statistics - it will help you to avoid making idiotic posts like this one.
You really are an ignorant cretin. Seriously.

sasguru
2nd March 2011, 11:58
The problem with BB, EO, SB, DP and the usual suspects is this:
They suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

Poorly educated and not very bright, they don't know why they don't know what they are talking about.
Courses in basic statistics, how science works and basic logic would help but rather than undergo these disciplines, they prefer to make us endure their ill-informed drivel.

DimPrawn
2nd March 2011, 12:01
The problem with BB, EO, SB, DP and the usual suspects is this:
They suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

Poorly educated and not very bright, they don't know why they don't know what they are talking about.
Courses in basic statistics, how science works and basic logic would help but rather than undergo these disciplines, they prefer to make us endure their ill-informed drivel.

Thanks, I didn't even realise I didn't know why I don't know what I don't know, but now I know, cheers.

Ignis Fatuus
2nd March 2011, 12:02
The problem with BB, EO, SB, DP and the usual suspects is this:
They suffer from the Dunning Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

Poorly educated and not very bright, they don't know why they don't know what they are talking about.
Courses in basic statistics, how science works and basic logic would help but rather than undergo these disciplines, they prefer to make us endure their ill-informed drivel.The other side of Dunning Kruger is that those who really are clever and knowledgeable tend to under-rate themselves. Or so I have heard, I don't really know anything about it.


The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
-- Bertrand Russell

EternalOptimist
2nd March 2011, 12:20
The other side of Dunning Kruger is that those who really are clever and knowledgeable tend to under-rate themselves. Or so I have heard, I don't really know anything about it.


The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
-- Bertrand Russell


I have never ever said that SaSGoru was cocksure,

I said he sure was a cock




:rolleyes:

Churchill
2nd March 2011, 12:22
What is it with all you ex-squaddies that you keep digging?
Tenacity is probably an admirable quality when defending against the enemy, but is mere asinine mulishness in this context.
You really are a moron. Seriously.

You're repeating yourself.

shaunbhoy
2nd March 2011, 12:50
I see Sasguru is limbering up nicely for the Annual C0ck of the Forum Awards, having so narrowly missed out last year.
Got to admire his tenacity.

He has all the natural attributes required to master this discipline. Arrogant, shallow, friendless, boring, uninteresting, monotonous, cloth-eared, fatuous, and thick-skinned with a head to match.

Go sasguru..............whoop whoop!!!

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

pjclarke
2nd March 2011, 22:40
....Can anyone see a natural 60 year cycle here?


There seems to be a rash of trying to explain global warming by theories that either ignore, or flatly contradict, the science called “physics.”

Often they involve some mysterious “cycle” (usually a 60-odd year cycle) which is claimed to be “obvious” but doesn’t stand up to analytical scrutiny. This is suggested as a cause of the global warming that’s been observed over the last century or so — or at least, the cause of so much of it that it enables one to minimize the warming due to man-made greenhouse gases.

Mathturbation (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/mathturbation/)

BlasterBates
3rd March 2011, 07:38
Speaking of miscalculations.

Interesting new paper.

New paper claims a value one seventh of the IPCC best estimate for Climate Sensitivity for a CO2 doubling | Watts Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/02/new-paper-claims-a-value-one-seventh-of-the-ipcc-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-for-a-co2-doubling/)

Which basically means IPCC:winker: calculations are skew wiff.