Believe it or not, the Socialist ideal does not fall on deaf ears with me - under the right (wrong?) circumstances my eye tears up a little when John Lennon's Imagine comes on the radio. But then rational thought takes over and I see Socialism for its dangers rather than its false promises. If you truly believe that happiness could be found in a Finnish commune then I pray that you find your way to one because from my perspective you (iceaura) seem like an unhappy person...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Deaf is not the problem. You don't know what socialism is, is the problem. More likely than reading comprehension on an internet forum, apparently - I said "rather live - than in a company town", which is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Have you ever lived in a company town? Driven through one? Would you say the problem with - say - the maquiladoras on the Juarez border or the banana plantations in Honduras, is excessive socialism?
It's true that I wouldn't want to live in a "company town" but frequently those towns exist precisely because that company does. In other words, a coal town grows because that's where the coal is...therefore a corporation set up shop there, providing jobs and a local economy which in turns helps the community grow. No corporation = no town. If the coal runs out the corporation leaves and people lose jobs which is simply a fact of life. What would the Socialist alternative be? To provide the coal miners guaranteed jobs mining...dirt...in perpetuity? Are you lamenting Capitalism or Reality?? Whatever iceaura, we'll just agree to disagree. I maintain that until the Socialist element is ferreted out of the proposed AGW solutions, AND the science (data and methodologies, with reasons for implementation) is made 100% open to public scrutiny, then I will fight AGAINST any major reform. I'm checking out of this thread - I have to go fill my Hummer with gas :wave:
The data is already open to scrutiny - if you don't have faith in the data collected by climate researchers, there is plenty left they didn't collect. All you need is some equipment, and a few decades. If you can't afford good equipment. make do. See if you can convince yourself that temperatures are warmer on average after so many decades of fieldwork, rather than cooler or warmer regionally - this will quite probably mean a few field trips around the planet, but hey, that's science. If you really want to disagree with universities and researchers, get a degree or two and do it legitimately, from the stance of someone who actually understands climate dynamics beyond bumper-sticker level.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
If you had the foggiest idea what socialism was, you would know what the immediate, first reflex, plain as glass Socialist alternative would be.to a company town. That's a pretty basic situation, after all. It's rock bottom, simple as they come socialism. Think on it, for a minute - the obvious, Socialism 101 answer to your question is at the *bottom of this post. And to forestall your presumption: it's not my recommended alternative. It's the Socialist alternative, and I'm not a socialist. Meanwhile, understand what this kind of comment: looks like to people who are not so completely ignorant of socialism and its various theories. You are obviously just spewing words - you have no idea what a "socialist element" would even look like in the AGW solutions (such as the inevitable "socialist elements" inherent in nuclear power plant networks or giant space laser power systems), because you don't know what socialism is. So time to hit the books for a while, eh? * the socialist alternative to a company town is a town company.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review Like I said earlier...'science' is hopelessly hamstrung by definition. That's not to say there isn't value in it, but remember who is doing the science... and what inevitably follows in the wake of that reality: Error. Indeed, a hopelessly 'circular'/closed 'environment' where 'zombies' thrive in the poisonous atmosphere of doubt that animates them and their methods. What do they truly know and understand? "Let the dead bury their dead."
Interesting article on the religion of CAGW with regards to the main stream media and bloggers. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Check it out... "Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming."--Mail Online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
The Daily Mail is barely a step up from the National Enquirer in terms of its journalistic credentials and honesty - they've been caught out on numerous occasions plain making shit up about various scientific claims - and what they claim certain scientists have actually said. So I'll keep an open mind until I read this in something other than a comicbook
Wonderful. Did you notice that the source for the Daily Mail was the BBC? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Thanks for the link - Looks like we were both right not to trust the Mail then. what he actually said was (paraphrasing), if you take a very small dataset, the significance is still there but is not as great as if you look a the dataset for much longer periods. Hardly anything we didnt already know. :zzz:
well, thats some of what he said. G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented? truncated for brevity: "Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented." A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical? dumped mealy mouthing.... "So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other." Yet co2 levels rose greatly. hmmm... B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming "Yes, but only just. " He goes on with this: "I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." I would like to see him calculate the trend dropping the 98 el nino event (a natural event and see what the trend is then). D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre. "This area is slightly outside my area of expertise." Nuff said. Oh wait, he wasnt done.... "When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period." Hence my request for him to drop the 98 el nino from question B. N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean? "It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well. " Well there ya go. Phil Jones admits the debate on climate change is not over in his mind. Maybe hes been reading this site: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php Doesnt matter to me who funds the site, they seem to be pulling published, peer reviewed papers from respected journals for their sources. Maybe hes been reading this site: http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/ Or this: http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1046 maybe this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
Scientists don't make absolute claims and have a tendency towards more circumspect language - so thats another non-surprise. Debate is probably the wrong word to use tho - debate is the last thing thats needed - it just isnt constructive - whats needed is more science.
Wasnt my question. Just quoting the source. "Originally Posted by synthesizer-patel The Daily Mail is barely a step up from the National Enquirer in terms of its journalistic credentials and honesty - they've been caught out on numerous occasions plain making shit up about various scientific claims - and what they claim certain scientists have actually said." Seems the IPCC has been doing exactly that. MWP not global Glacier Gate Africa Gate Storm Gate etc. IPCC and its consensus science? All those 'scientists' on the review panel. Phil Jones was one of the reviewers IIRC. Cant remember if he is credited as an author, but I think so.
I mean debate in terms of general media comment and the bias that's associated with it - discussion of scientific data in order to form an overall synthesis of that data serves a valuable function in the long term even if in the short term mistakes get made - and thats hardly scandalous or "Gate-worthy" - thats just how science works - IPCC hasnt made anything up - it has merely incoporated, and then recognised, then adjusted for, some small errors in data - that's good science. The bottom line is - that despite the screeching hyperbole of the denialist brigade over errors that have been made by a few individuals, and the (very) bad behaviour of a few individuals, the overall science is still solid - there is statisically significant warming trend which cannot be accounted for by known natural climate variation processes (yet). End of story really. My view is that the question still remains open as to what degree atmospheric CO2 is responsible for climate change, and whether there might also be other currently unkown climate variables may also be contributing to that change - so in that respect I am very much a sceptic in the strictest definition of the word. I'm also DEEPLY sceptical of some of the biogeochemical models used for predictions and simulations of climate change, as they are based on some rather faulty assumptions: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...d=144092&md5=1556ba87399a007378c3843f4448f4ce
Such as the IPCC claims of "only peer reviewed science" being considered in its findings of AGW? Shall I introduce you to the FOI requests for data and computer programs that were denied (a huge part of the scientifically falsifiable requirement of the label science). Would you like links to source used by the IPCC such as WWF and Greenpeace? again the quote from phil jones: "So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other." CO2 up sharply between the beginning of those periods and the ending point. Not statistically significantly different from each other means co2 wasnt the driver. If the difference in 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 warming is not significantly different, BUT the alleged driver of the warming is, wouldnt it be reasonable for SCIENCE to go back to the drawing board and find out what is the driver? BEFORE declaring with a 90% certainty that the last 30 years is driven by AGW, as is the claim of the IPCC, who touts 2400+ scientists. Allegedly reviewed by the BEST of climate science? Here we go with the name calling. Please allow me to retort: It seems the true deniers are those who think AGW is solid science. Until the codes/raw data are produced, its not science. Then why resort to the name calling such as denialist? Why not demand that GISS, CRU, et all release the raw data, release their formulas for 'homogenization', release the codes, explain their reasonings? You do realize when the folks such as Phil Jones spew out "why dont they download the raw data and to their own charts" the raw data isnt available. All of it [GISS for example] has been 'homogenized' before its put out there for download. Sooo again we are dealing with unfalsifiable. Why not demand that Phil Jones recant his papers where he cannot supply the raw data for falsification, as is required by the scientific method? Personally, the last month or so, I have grown increasingly alarmed at the methods used to fill in the blanks on 'global temperature'. Temperature gridding. Much fun, that is. Didnt find out about that in the MSM.
sure why not - I bet its not as sensational as you claim - you've provided nothing sensational so far after all. again the quote from phil jones: in discussion of a single dataset - nothing sensational there actually I wasnt referring to you but the premier league of cranks and conspiracy theorists: Inhofe, Booker, John Tomlinson, David Bellamy, James Delingpole, Marcus Brigstocke to name but a few 2 reasons: 1. watching the anti-climate change cranks deal with the data would be like expecting your hairdresser to diagnose multiple sclerosis - a complete waste of time, and not something that they would in fact have any interest at all in honestly dealing with. 2. there's plenty more available data where than came from that supports the trend That Phil Jones has behaved very badly is beyond question - that climate change science in general remains solid also remains beyond question. http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnis...ence-and-antireason-and-they-terrify-me.thtml
