Climategate 2.0

[fragment]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Anyone care to read this, or would it burst your bubble?

The False Global Warming Temperature Readings. Al Gore's Global Warming Lies - The Religion of Environmentalism

How old is that page? I only glanced quickly but what I saw was stuff that's been debunked for some time.

Anyway, here's one place for reality-checking climate claims:
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And I'm not convinced that global warming will be the disaster that the fear-mongers are predicting. It's all based on computer models of the future, but past periods of warmer climate have not been bad at all, in fact those periods have been times of plenty and abundant life over the whole planet. As far as the computer models that predict disaster, GIGO.

As far as the joke, I don't really care.

Wow, I thought, I was probably being a little harsh, but nope you really are just a science denying dipshit.


Protip, no one thinks that global warming will end life on earth, you evidently disagree with a straw argument.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by fragment

How old is that page? I only glanced quickly but what I saw was stuff that's been debunked for some time.

Anyway, here's one place for reality-checking climate claims:
Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Creationist and climate denial garbage is often a miracle of reuse and recycling.

[Crumb]

All-female sea turtles born as temperature rises: 84 degrees starts phenomenon - Hartford Top News | Examiner.com

[LadyShea]

That's why the northern Gulf nesting grounds are kind of important, as we have cooler nest temperatures in general both due to the bright white sand, and the northierness.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Wow, I thought, I was probably being a little harsh, but nope you really are just a science denying dipshit.

Perhaps you should to read, I don't deny the science of global warming, just some of the conclusions drawn from that science. It's very convenient to select the data fed into a computer model to get the results you want, and most of the people waving computer models at us have an agenda that has more to do with politics than environment. FYI, science is how we know what the climate was like in the past, and it is usually Cold & Dry, or Warm & Wet. Probably because when it is cold more water is locked up in ice, and when it is warmer there is more liquid water world wide.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

FYI, I don't argue that global warming isn't happening, I just don't believe that it will be the disaster that the fear-mongers are claiming.

I guess it depends on how you define disaster and for whom/what said disaster would be disastrous.

[fragment]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It's very convenient to select the data fed into a computer model to get the results you want, and most of the people waving computer models at us have an agenda that has more to do with politics than environment.

Examples please of people doing this.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by thedoc

most of the people waving computer models at us have an agenda that has more to do with politics than environment.

This sounds like an empirical claim! Could you cite the study that revealed this datum?

FYI, science is how we know what the climate was like in the past, and it is usually Cold & Dry, or Warm & Wet.

Thank you, O Man Of Science. Your grasp of these issues is deep and informed!

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by thedoc

As far as the computer models that predict disaster, GIGO.

Also, you know, GIGO is sort of a complicated thing. Surprisingly so! (Well, I was surprised.) Because if you think about the first G, it turns out to be relative to whatever function or operation relates the input and the output. Biased, distorted, even plain old false data points can serve up perfectly correct and reliable outputs, provided the mediating operation is sufficiently clever to discern patterns or correct for the problems. GIGO probably applies best to syntactically ill-formed inputs, not inaccurate ones. Otherwise it courts either falsity as a rule, since lots of operations can glean non-garbage from noisy or crappy data, or triviality, if garbage were simply defined in terms of what generates garbage as an output of that particular function. Probably lots of nerds have thought about this, though.

[erimir]

Also it doesn't matter what kind of food I put in, I always get garbage out in the end.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

Wow, I thought, I was probably being a little harsh, but nope you really are just a science denying dipshit.

Protip, no one thinks that global warming will end life on earth, you evidently disagree with a straw argument.

I don't recall ever mentioning the end of life on Earth due to global warming. I must say that you are really good at inventing statements that I have not made and then tearing them apart, way to go, a real idiots argument.

And like I said, I don't deny science, I just interpret it differently.

Harsh really doesn't matter, your opinion has become irrelevant.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't recall ever mentioning the end of life on Earth due to global warming.

You haven't mentioned much at all.
People (who?) have made claims (what?) that are political (how?).
Perhaps you could actually give details, what claims do you think are being made that you don't believe?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And like I said, I don't deny science, I just interpret it differently.

What are you interpreting and in what way? Again, please define "disaster" as you are using it and why you think it is unlikely.

You've really made just a lot of vague criticisms. Do you have any specific critiques or competing data? How about the raw data you are analyzing to reach your conclusions?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And like I said, I don't deny science, I just interpret it differently.

Because you've made some Astute Observations, right?

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't recall ever mentioning the end of life on Earth due to global warming ...

You said ...

Originally Posted by thedoc

... I just don't believe that it will be the disaster that the fear-mongers are claiming.

... and the trouble is that the most familiar exaggerated disaster predicted, albeit implicitly, by the more fanatical prophets of AGW doom is precisely the "OMG We've only got 6 months to Save the World!" one.

By saying you don't believe it's going to be (as much of) a disaster as is claimed, you are denying an unspecified class of problems. That raises this question (already asked in other words by LS, and so far ignored, here) ...

Do you, thedoc, believe that all the negative consequences of the climate change that you agree is real, for all humanity around the globe, are insufficient to outweigh the benefits to you and your neighbours of warmer winters?

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't recall ever mentioning the end of life on Earth due to global warming. I must say that you are really good at inventing statements that I have not made and then tearing them apart, way to go, a real idiots argument.

And like I said, I don't deny science, I just interpret it differently.

Harsh really doesn't matter, your opinion has become irrelevant.

It's all based on computer models of the future, but past periods of warmer climate have not been bad at all, in fact those periods have been times of plenty and abundant life over the whole planet.

You state here that global warming shouldn't be all that bad because when the planet was warmer there was abundant life. Given the context of discussing if agw is serious or not, it is not a logical leap for me to draw the conclusion that you must believe that climatologists think that agw is going to lead to less or no life on earth. I will concede that I was not being generous in my interpretation of your argument. I didn't put words in your mouth.

Like others have hinted or stated, please make some actual claims instead of bullshit vague ones.


Also, if being harsh doesn't matter then how did my arguments become irrelevant?

[Dingfod]

You unpatriotic racists, believing in global warming and all that shit.

[Dingfod]

In Pat Sajak's defense, he is a raging alcoholic.

[The Man]

Via Balloon Juice, the Greenland ice sheet has a similar instability to Antarctica's:

Last week two studies provided evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has begun an irreversible process of collapse, in part because its key glaciers are grounded below sea level and are melting from underneath.

Now, a team of researchers from NASA and UC Irvine reports that the Greenland ice sheet has a similar instability.

Futurama - We're boned - YouTube

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I guess it depends on how you define disaster and for whom/what said disaster would be disastrous.

That's all well and good, so long as we don't define "disaster" to include losing the coastal areas to flooding. According to Koch brothers professional shill beloved scientist Marlo Lewis, warming will inevitably result in massive sea level rises, but so what? That's no reason to give in to hysteria by trying to reduce carbon emissions or anything. We just move the big cities! After all, "[t]he built environment from the studies I've seen, most building stock turns over in about 50 years" which means that "the markets adapt to this sort of phenomenon anyway."

As always, then, the will provide.

And besides, think of the comedic potential in watching a bunch of dumbass Floridians standing shoulder-to-shoulder, fondling their firearms, trying to Stand Their Ground (pbuh) against the ocean.

[The Lone Ranger]

That sort of thing worked so well for Cnut the Great, after all. ...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's all well and good, so long as we don't define "disaster" to include losing the coastal areas to flooding. According to Koch brothers professional shill beloved scientist Marlo Lewis, warming will inevitably result in massive sea level rises, but so what? That's no reason to give in to hysteria by trying to reduce carbon emissions or anything. We just move the big cities! After all, "[t]he built environment from the studies I've seen, most building stock turns over in about 50 years" which means that "the markets adapt to this sort of phenomenon anyway."

As always, then, the will provide.

And besides, think of the comedic potential in watching a bunch of dumbass Floridians standing shoulder-to-shoulder, fondling their firearms, trying to Stand Their Ground (pbuh) against the ocean.

Yep, let the government take care of it with wonderful new programs that will surely turn out better than all the other government programs in the past.

They don't need to move the cities, just follow the example set by Venice Italy. They just need to be a bit quicker about it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

Thank you, O Man Of Science. Your grasp of these issues is deep and informed!

Thanks, it's nice to be appreciated.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yep, let the government take care of it with wonderful new programs that will surely turn out better than all the other government programs in the past.

They don't need to move the cities, just follow the example set by Venice Italy. They just need to be a bit quicker about it.

It's been said before, but what the hell, it apparently can't be repeated often enough:

You Are an Idiot