RE: climate change denier comes to his senses

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: climate change denier comes to his senses

Page: << < prev 6 7 8 [9] 10 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 8:56:13 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And fracking is super destructive. Count me among NY's avid opposition.

Pennsylvania can keep their (literally) flaming water.

I said the same further up the thread. No argument here.

(in reply to Musicmystery)

Profile

Post #: 161

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 9:00:40 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Obvious – but wrong. Thanks in part to technologies like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracking, we are entering a new age of abundant oil.

I have a hard time taking someone seriously who says that hydraulic fracking is a technique for oil extraction. It's a gas extraction technique, not oil.
I mean, would you take a mechanic seriously if he told you that he wanted to change the spark plugs in your diesel engine?

Key words here. "and a former oil industry executive,"

"Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer, as a result of the action of a pressurized fluid. Some hydraulic fractures form naturally—certain veins or dikes are examples—and can create conduits along which gas and petroleum from source rocks may migrate to reservoir rocks. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, commonly known as fraccing or fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas (including shale gas, tight gas and coal seam gas), or other substances for extraction.[a][1] This type of fracturing creates fractures from a wellbore drilled into reservoir rock formations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

(in reply to Hillwilliam)

Profile

Post #: 162

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 9:48:26 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Dr Curry is suggesting (my words) that the data may be based on a specious assumption that there is a linear causal relationship between CO2 and a dynamic, chaotic atmosphere/ocean climate machine.

It certainly is your words becaus Curry woud know better. Muller made no such assumption. You even complained about it previously in this thread.

I think I captured the essence of Curry's position correctly. I am referring to the assumption that all alarmists make, not just Muller. You are welcome to to find evidence in Curry's comments and Blog posts that I have her wrong instead of just making an unsourced pronouncement. You did not object previously when I reported Curry's theory. Well yeah, you did. You parroted Muller's claim that it is untestable.

So basically, you don't read any information that contradicts your hardened position?

I already explained, her idea makes no predictions and therefore is not science.

But what I called you on in the above post is your claim that anyone claiming there is a linear causul relationship between climate and CO2. You actually complained earlier in the thread that the relationship was only a natural log relationship.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 8/12/2012 9:49:19 AM >

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 163

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 11:39:53 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

But what I called you on in the above post is your claim that anyone claiming there is a linear causul relationship between climate and CO2. You actually complained earlier in the thread that the relationship was only a natural log relationship.

OMG! What a reach on your part. All I did was ask why Muller used a natural log scale to plot his CO2 curve? I still don't understand that and apparently neither do you.

< Message edited by vincentML -- 8/12/2012 11:40:13 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 164

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 12:54:52 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

But what I called you on in the above post is your claim that anyone claiming there is a linear causul relationship between climate and CO2. You actually complained earlier in the thread that the relationship was only a natural log relationship.

OMG! What a reach on your part. All I did was ask why Muller used a natural log scale to plot his CO2 curve? I still don't understand that and apparently neither do you.

If that scale is needed to show the relationship then it isn't a linear reltionship which is what you claimed.

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 165

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 2:59:18 PM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

But what I called you on in the above post is your claim that anyone claiming there is a linear causul relationship between climate and CO2. You actually complained earlier in the thread that the relationship was only a natural log relationship.

OMG! What a reach on your part. All I did was ask why Muller used a natural log scale to plot his CO2 curve? I still don't understand that and apparently neither do you.

If that scale is needed to show the relationship then it isn't a linear reltionship which is what you claimed.

Whatever. Even Muller concludes he has no evidence of a causal relationship of any type. Only correlation. It is the issue you can't seem to accept.

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 166

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 4:17:53 PM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

If you examine the records of the city of Copenhagen for the ten or twelve years following World War II, you will find a strong positive correlation between (i) the annual number of storks nesting in the city, and (ii) the annual number of human babies born in the city. Jump too quickly to the assumption of a causal relationship, and you will find yourself saddled with the conclusion either that storks bring babies or that babies bring storks.

Correlations suck.

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 167

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/12/2012 8:11:20 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

But what I called you on in the above post is your claim that anyone claiming there is a linear causul relationship between climate and CO2. You actually complained earlier in the thread that the relationship was only a natural log relationship.

OMG! What a reach on your part. All I did was ask why Muller used a natural log scale to plot his CO2 curve? I still don't understand that and apparently neither do you.

If that scale is needed to show the relationship then it isn't a linear reltionship which is what you claimed.

Whatever. Even Muller concludes he has no evidence of a causal relationship of any type. Only correlation. It is the issue you can't seem to accept.

No, Muller said he has no conclusive proof of casaulity. He makes clear that no other evidence exists to challenge the relationship between CO2 and climate change. So until there is another suspect, with better evidence than exists for the CO2 warming linkage, that has to be treated as a fact.

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 168

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 12:54:47 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

Mueller is very clear about the issue of causality in the OP:
"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase." (my emphasis)

The days when people could idly dispute the claim that human-caused CO2 emissions are intricately involved in global warming are over. Those who wish to dispute the findings are now required to advance "an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does" if they wish to be "considered seriously".

I await an "alternative explanation" for Mueller's data that explains the data at least as well as human caused CO2 emissions explanation does. In plainer language, it's time for deniers to put up or shut up.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 8/13/2012 12:56:41 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 169

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 4:50:41 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

To my mind, this is where the case against AGW collapses completely. The idea that almost all climate scientists are engaged in some sinister conspiracy to "re-distribute wealth", or to "seize control of vast portions of the economies of virtually every industrialized nation" is so far-fetched it invites ridicule. To date, no evidence of any sort has been advanced to support this claim.

This point always strikes me too. One of the first things detectives always look for (at least in fiction) is a motive, and I've never heard anyone explain what would impel a host of scientists, the IPCC, the Smithsonian, National Geographic, and God knows who else to band together and try to sell people on AGW if they didn't believe in it.

. . . But an awful lot of *much more* potent argument and support for the idea that the denialists are involved in a conspiracy to *keep* the wealth in the hands of those who currently hold it, as well as maintain control of the vast portions of the world's industrialised nations. Every time the denialists wag their fingers and say 'Follow the money!' I think, 'For god's sake, you cretins, there's a motorway picked out on the map in dayglo red that carries the money from the big corps to the denialists!'

My other bugbear is this term 'alarmist'. What is that? It's alarming, whatever 'it' is, so it must be ipso facto wrong? Frequently I think that the root problem here is the conservative worldview itself; contained in which, it seems, is a belief that whatever science 'shows' that world won't and can't change radically, just must be nearer the truth. We need an opposing term. 'Complacentist', anyone?

Re that last: Wish I could find the piece, now. It's been all but forgotten. An eminent historian once wrote a detailed, cogently argued tract maintaining that there will never be another world war. UK government ministers were much taken with it. Brilliant in nearly all ways, it was. It was published a few years before the outbreak of WW2, if anyone wants to go on a hunt for it.

< Message edited by PeonForHer -- 8/13/2012 4:52:50 AM >

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to dcnovice)

Profile

Post #: 170

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 5:06:42 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
it's time for deniers to put up or shut up.

Pff, you are a submissive.

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 171

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 5:16:19 AM

Rule

Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline

FR

Who cares about a little carbondioxide; or global warming, if any? I don't: I can swim.

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 172

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 5:29:48 AM

PeonForHer

Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

FR

Who cares about a little carbondioxide; or global warming, if any? I don't: I can swim.

Not as well as the sharks, though.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com

(in reply to Rule)

Profile

Post #: 173

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 7:52:07 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

PeonForHer
We need an opposing term. 'Complacentist', anyone?

Fantasist?

_____________________________

(in reply to PeonForHer)

Profile

Post #: 174

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 8:37:36 AM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 175

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 9:39:27 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

No, Muller said he has no conclusive proof of casaulity. He makes clear that no other evidence exists to challenge the relationship between CO2 and climate change. So until there is another suspect, with better evidence than exists for the CO2 warming linkage, that has to be treated as a fact.

In a similar vein there was no clear evidence that the earth was not at the center of the universe and that a moving object did not require the application of a continuous force. And so Aristotle assumed these "facts" in the absence of another model. Another application of such logic: there is no evidence that God does not exist so we must take his existence as fact. This type of reasoning is not part of the scientific enterprise, imo.

I have offered Dr Curry's detailed discussion of an alternative but you wish not to examine it, despite the fact that she is a collegue of Dr Muller. Instead you embrace Dr Muller like some savior when his paper has not even been peer reviewed! Maybe (?) quite a lot of intellectual or emotional capital invested on your part, jumping on a band wagon that has only recently (relative to scientific process) left the barn

< Message edited by vincentML -- 8/13/2012 10:17:09 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 176

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 9:42:27 AM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

I await an "alternative explanation" for Mueller's data that explains the data at least as well as human caused CO2 emissions explanation does. In plainer language, it's time for deniers to put up or shut up.

You keep repeating that refrain but you do not care to even acknowledge the information I gave in response. *shrugs*

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 177

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 11:46:00 AM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No, Muller said he has no conclusive proof of casaulity. He makes clear that no other evidence exists to challenge the relationship between CO2 and climate change. So until there is another suspect, with better evidence than exists for the CO2 warming linkage, that has to be treated as a fact.

In a similar vein there was no clear evidence that the earth was not at the center of the universe and that a moving object did not require the application of a continuous force. And so Aristotle assumed these "facts" in the absence of another model. Another application of such logic: there is no evidence that God does not exist so we must take his existence as fact. This type of reasoning is not part of the scientific enterprise, imo.

There was clear evidence that the geocentric model was wrong. Aristotle simply ignored it. Read up on epicycles.

quote:

I have offered Dr Curry's detailed discussion of an alternative but you wish not to examine it, despite the fact that she is a collegue of Dr Muller. Instead you embrace Dr Muller like some savior when his paper has not even been peer reviewed! Maybe (?) quite a lot of intellectual or emotional capital invested on your part, jumping on a band wagon that has only recently (relative to scientific process) left the barn

One more time, what predictions does Curry's model make? If it isn't predictive and it will fit any future events how is that useful?

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 178

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 12:49:24 PM

Yachtie

Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So until there is another suspect, with better evidence than exists for the CO2 warming linkage, that has to be treated as a fact.

Therein lies your problem. Declaring fact simply because there is nothing else to hang your hat on, no matter that the hat rack is currently not attributable as causal.

That's desperation.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to DomKen)

Profile

Post #: 179

RE: climate change denier comes to his senses - 8/13/2012 1:02:30 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
So until there is another suspect, with better evidence than exists for the CO2 warming linkage, that has to be treated as a fact.

Therein lies your problem. Declaring fact simply because there is nothing else to hang your hat on, no matter that the hat rack is currently not attributable as causal.

That's desperation.

No. That's Occam's Razor. When a possible explanation exists that supports all the evidence it is wrong and scientifically pointless to propose a more complicated answer unless and until there is evidence that the old answer does not explain.

(in reply to Yachtie)

Profile

Post #: 180