Kyoto Protocol

[joeblast]

Are you that mopped for an argument that you have to go making up wild things? and then of course dismiss the argument even though it doesnt appear that you even attempted to understand it. Of course people will find little issues here or there, that paper I linked did a very good job at explaining more things than climate models have but it is by no means perfectly comprehensive.

 

You do understand that climate models are also hypotheses at this point, yes? Hypotheses that still reside in the realm of theory - they are making testable predictions, which is necessary for a hypothesis - and they are not producing realistic results, therefore well into the realm of theory.

 

Much like Einstein working until his deathbed to unify electromagnetism and gravity, AGW theories will play out till their deathbed ultimately being unable to produce realistic results - because if you start with a flawed premise (making GR & EM equations fit into a beautiful unified theory without including quantum mechanics in any way shape or form; making a realistic climate model while still relying on trace gasses as more than third order forcings...=the slightest peturbation is really their effects) and doggedly stick to that flawed premise, then all you will really wind up doing is mental gymnastics about a certain non productive line of reason.

 

Wouldnt bother me a ton if it didnt come with the trillion dollar price tags, but the farce has gone so far that the UN is trying to demand 9 figures a year in tithes from us, it is beyond ridiculous when the entire premise cannot be proven.

[ralis]

 

You do understand that climate models are also hypotheses at this point, yes? Hypotheses that still reside in the realm of theory - they are making testable predictions, which is necessary for a hypothesis - and they are not producing realistic results, therefore well into the realm of theory.

 

 

Wouldnt bother me a ton if it didnt come with the trillion dollar price tags, but the farce has gone so far that the UN is trying to demand 9 figures a year in tithes from us, it is beyond ridiculous when the entire premise cannot be proven.

 

A little science 101 given that you are getting your terms confused!

 

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

 

The bottom line with you is money, money, money! I am convinced that you don't care much for this planet and by extension the residents of.

[ralis]

O.k. then, don't be a sucker and try to live in symbiosis? I don't get your point.

 

You obviously copy/pasted this whole thing from here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/

 

and then acted as if it is yours. . . and presented it without the rest of the data, hardly amusing. You might fool everyone else but I'm not buying it.

 

The partial data, cut/paste narrative that Joe presents as his own is extremely offensive. The real work being conducted by thousands of research scientists from various fields has taken decades. Further, without the technology of super computers, the complex modeling of the biosphere would not be possible. The denier crowd of paid shills are nothing more than dangerous inquisitors.

[ralis]

 

(making GR & EM equations fit into a beautiful unified theory without including quantum mechanics in any way shape or form; making a realistic climate model while still relying on trace gasses as more than third order forcings...=the slightest peturbation is really their effects)

 

 

Where is that cut/paste quote from?

 

The science of global warming and the mathematical foundations of, are based on complexity/chaos, non linear dynamics, which includes quantum mechanics. What is your point?

 

I believe what you are looking for is a static linear (2 variable) predictable biosphere where change never occurs! That is an illusion.

Edited January 1, 2012 by ralis

[Dreamingawake]

The denier crowd of paid shills are nothing more than dangerous inquisitors.

 

And ad hominem attacks don't actually prove anything

[ralis]

And ad hominem attacks don't actually prove anything

 

Just stating it like it is! Ad hominem is Latin for "to the person", and not a group of individuals. I am referring to an entire group that has stifled real change in how we approach this problem. This has caused a major setback for any real progress in this matter. The denier group has been given too much time in front of the media with their inquisition.

Edited January 1, 2012 by ralis

[Informer]

Are you that mopped for an argument that you have to go making up wild things? and then of course dismiss the argument even though it doesnt appear that you even attempted to understand it. Of course people will find little issues here or there, that paper I linked did a very good job at explaining more things than climate models have but it is by no means perfectly comprehensive.

 

You do understand that climate models are also hypotheses at this point, yes? Hypotheses that still reside in the realm of theory - they are making testable predictions, which is necessary for a hypothesis - and they are not producing realistic results, therefore well into the realm of theory.

 

Much like Einstein working until his deathbed to unify electromagnetism and gravity, AGW theories will play out till their deathbed ultimately being unable to produce realistic results - because if you start with a flawed premise (making GR & EM equations fit into a beautiful unified theory without including quantum mechanics in any way shape or form; making a realistic climate model while still relying on trace gasses as more than third order forcings...=the slightest peturbation is really their effects) and doggedly stick to that flawed premise, then all you will really wind up doing is mental gymnastics about a certain non productive line of reason.

 

Wouldnt bother me a ton if it didnt come with the trillion dollar price tags, but the farce has gone so far that the UN is trying to demand 9 figures a year in tithes from us, it is beyond ridiculous when the entire premise cannot be proven.

 

I think I just denied having to argue by discrediting the source as per rules is papers that have been peer-reviewed, rather than being peer-reviewed.

 

You're right, I am not going to take time to understand the formula, if you are trying to explain it I'm all ears.

 

The point is that carbon emissions effects as well as affects the environment as well as individual and inhabitants of the environments, regardless of how much or how little. If you are pretending to understand the formula, then plug in some numbers to it and show us the differences.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

If you look at the big picture, through logic and deduction, you should be able to conclude that the author didn't try very hard to disprove the thesis before submitting it. The reason for this is that it has variables that conflicts with a previously established expression that has already been attempted to be disproven.

 

Which is why your paper is not really an argument, but more of an idea. Why would I waste time arguing something that is already invalid?

 

It is not my job to disprove your thesis, that is your job. That is if you actually wrote the paper as you seem to continue to claim.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Informer

[joeblast]

If you look at the big picture, through logic and deduction, you should be able to conclude that the author didn't try very hard to disprove the thesis before submitting it. The reason for this is that it has variables that conflicts with a previously established expression that has already been attempted to be disproven.

 

Which is why your paper is not really an argument, but more of an idea. Why would I waste time arguing something that is already invalid?

 

It is not my job to disprove your thesis, that is your job. That is if you actually wrote the paper as you seem to continue to claim.

That mouthful would require a bunch more than a casual statement to be able to stand. And for chrissakes, no, I did not write that.

 

See what you just did there? You justified the dismissal of an argument which you dont understand, and you dont understand why it is more correct than the models that rely on greenhouse gases to make the earth turn.

 

 

 

Ralis...no, my terms are not confused. AGW models are hypotheses.

 

That cut and paste is straight from the back of my head, and you completely missed the analogy....again.

[Informer]

That mouthful would require a bunch more than a casual statement to be able to stand. And for chrissakes, no, I did not write that.

 

See what you just did there? You justified the dismissal of an argument which you dont understand, and you dont understand why it is more correct than the models that rely on greenhouse gases to make the earth turn.

 

 

 

Ralis...no, my terms are not confused. AGW models are hypotheses.

 

That cut and paste is straight from the back of my head, and you completely missed the analogy....again.

 

I do not reject the formula, nor do I accept it. In regards to the debate it is irrelevant, because it is just some random idea at this point. If you want to explain it then go ahead, you did present it.

[ralis]

This thread has been diverted from the original premise by the Tea Party Republican operative Joeblast.

 

In order to fully understand how important public discourse is controlled and manipulated so as to change the public's perception of global warming, one must read NLP, Frank Luntz, Joseph Goebbels, Machiavelli and listen to Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove et al.

 

Joe's narrative is replete with Republican Tea Bagger talking points that are parroted over the media daily. When engaging in debate, notice that Joe never answers a question in a direct manner but diverts the discourse to standard Republican talking points and in this case the global warming debate, which includes false accusations directed at the scientific community. Joe's standard excuse is that explaining his so called scientific ideology would take too much time. Further, Joe believes that none (which includes Dr. James Hansen and the rest of the scientific community) are equipped with the mental faculties to fully comprehend his ideas. These accusations are nothing more than demagoguery with a facade of rational logic. Their motive is not to win the debate but stifle it so that implementation of real solutions to this very serious problem never occurs.

 

This debate is about who acquires power! For now, money is king!

 

 

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html

[joeblast]

Informer it was explained, but you ignored it The paragraph I quoted explains it and shows how the GHG coefficients when brought into a real setting when you include all of the physics involved, are vanishing in their extent (more context if you read the actual paper instead of my little clipping from it-and context was a bit of what was missing from the snippet, but I wasnt going to just paste the entire paper here. If you're going to rebut something I'd at least expect that you'd read it...) But the jist of it is that all of these AGW happy models place blame where very little is due while at the same time making other glaring omissions. Combining convective & radiative transfers simply produces a different result than only accounting for one or the other - and it turns out the difference is pretty significant when both are considered dymanically, simultaneously - and the process happens a little more or less in extent depending on where one is on the planet.

 

All I have been doing recently is poking holes in AGW models. "They're comprehensive?" Ok, well, what about this, what about this, what about that, which show the models to be incomplete. Things that will significantly change the outcomes of what is fed through. Ergo they are nonphysical.

 

Tell me, why do a lot of Ovens these days have convection bake settings? Because convection distributes the heat more quickly than in a radiative fashion. Do you think your oven would cook your food more quickly if it was filled with co2 first? How about if you instead increased the pressure 4 bar? Which would make more of a difference? (hah, by that rationale, do you think the earth's climate is a closed system?)

 

Asking simple questions like these is enough to figure out that the AGW models produce nonphysical results. Answering them honestly and still believing I can just about equate with still believing in santa claus, knowing there aint no big red sleigh flying around on christmas eve. Believing in AGW models requires that you believe the models' predictions - and when the predictions are wildly inaccurate, the models are easily shot full of more holes than a redneck's barn...*sigh*...it really requires that you believe and believe fully and nothing's going to change your mind, sorta like we see with ralis.

 

How is it that the predictions of the models...well, those dont matter? To me, if we are going to bet trillions in resources then the models had damn well better at least produce realistic results. But, they're not, the climatologists make predictions and they wrong, and forgotten about just like last week's weather. Lil intellectually dishonest, ya think?

 

 

and ralis...it doesnt really matter how powerful the computer is that you have if you are feeding the data through nonphysical parameters - that just means it is going to give you your incorrect result more quickly Contrived figures fed through an unreal model produces reality? good one! I've pointed out where AGW proponents have cherry picked before - but all you can do is state that anything which disagrees with AGW is cherry picked, yet you cant say exactly what is. I wonder why. You supposedly have a competent degree and claim to understand quite well - part of understanding is being able to relate to those whom do not have the same depth of understanding - where's your understandings? Nowhere. House built upon a sand dune. You have more than enough data at your disposal to craft some semblance of an argument, but all you can really do is hide and call names. I honestly dont think you have anywhere near the foundation you claim to, brother - otherwise I would have actually had debate with you instead of continually dealing with your derailments and spitting vitriol against people with whom you ideologically disagree.

 

 

Any honest environmentalist would be extremely pissed at the tangent AGW models have wrought on environmentalism itself. It is a glaring misuse of resources that detracts from real environmental efforts and instead has become but another mechanism for wealth transfer and increasingly less to do with actual science, as we saw in Durban, Cancun, etc - mostly just hypocritical bureaucrats trying to figure out the best way to get to a one world government where the UN can get powers of taxation over everyone, and what better way to start than with the very "saving of the planet" itself.

 

Edited January 2, 2012 by joeblast

[Informer]

Informer it was explained, but you ignored it The paragraph I quoted explains it and shows how the GHG coefficients when brought into a real setting when you include all of the physics involved, are vanishing in their extent (more context if you read the actual paper instead of my little clipping from it-and context was a bit of what was missing from the snippet, but I wasnt going to just paste the entire paper here. If you're going to rebut something I'd at least expect that you'd read it...)

 

Yes, and I will continue to ignore it in regards to the argument at hand. Your process is bassackwards, when verifying data the first thing you do is check the source. I know that you know how to cite properly and use quotes, because you have done it in the past. Why so negligent Joe?

 

If you do understand the formula's then please explain the variables and plug in some data so I can understand what you are talking about.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Informer

[ralis]

Yes, and I will continue to ignore it in regards to the argument at hand. Your process is bassackwards, when verifying data the first thing you do is check the source. I know that you know how to cite properly and use quotes, because you have done it in the past. Why so negligent Joe?

 

If you do understand the formula's then please explain the variables and plug in some data so I can understand what you are talking about.

 

Obviously he can't do it.

[Informer]

The only thing that either of us really know is that the vast majority of scientists think we do have quite a negative impact on the environment when emitting excessive, reduceable, peak oil, emissions. It is even written that way in the text books because it has been accepted by those scientists who tried to disprove it already.

 

I know you want to chug your gasoline and light shit on fire but, its not good for teh environment broski.

Edited January 2, 2012 by Informer

[Informer]

What is the worse that can come from people over-reacting to carbon emissions? I see the biggest pro being that we become less dependent on foreign oil. What is the biggest con that you see?

[ralis]

What is the worse that can come from people over-reacting to carbon emissions? I see the biggest pro being that we become less dependent on foreign oil. What is the biggest con that you see?

 

The problem now is that real solutions are not being implemented. The deniers have politicized this issue and basically stopped real progress. It may be too late! The tipping point may be the methane plumes around the arctic circle. I suppose the resident denier will claim that methane is no big deal and not in any way toxic.

 

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/16/041220/russian-scientist-discovers-giant-arctic-methane-plumes

 

http://theenergycollective.com/jcwinnie/72551/sheer-scale-and-high-density-plumes

[Informer]

The problem now is that real solutions are not being implemented. The deniers have politicized this issue and basically stopped real progress. It may be too late! The tipping point may be the methane plumes around the arctic circle. I suppose the resident denier will claim that methane is no big deal and not in any way toxic.

 

http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/16/041220/russian-scientist-discovers-giant-arctic-methane-plumes

 

http://theenergycollective.com/jcwinnie/72551/sheer-scale-and-high-density-plumes

 

Solar panels are getting pretty cheap IMO, if the government really did show a care they would cut the costs directly to the consumer instead of lining any potential rebates in red tape.

[joeblast]

Yes, and I will continue to ignore it in regards to the argument at hand. Your process is bassackwards, when verifying data the first thing you do is check the source. I know that you know how to cite properly and use quotes, because you have done it in the past. Why so negligent Joe?

 

If you do understand the formula's then please explain the variables and plug in some data so I can understand what you are talking about.

Of course one looks at the source - are you saying its not okay for ralis to dismiss every single word of mine "because of the weatherman?" I know if I see something from GISS it will be 'corrected' warmer ("because that's where it should be") than satellite measurements, for example. That doesnt mean its 100% wrong at all, it just means there is going to be a certain amount of bias because it is historically biased - I pasted in a shot previously of "the same data" shown with different "smoothings" which "produced drastically different results" when you graphed it out just to give an example of what charlatans do in the absence of data - it gets fudged. And Hames Hansen feels no compunction over embellishing his results, nor do Jones Mann Briffa et al.

 

But that's aside - really what I look for is the main idea. Of course, a lot of papers start off with a flawed premise - if you assume 3 degrees C per year of warming and then proceed from there - well, sorry, your paper will have incorrect conclusions, I dont care how robust the rest of it is. *That* is starting with a foregone conclusion - an erroneous one, at that. If your model is predicting meters of sea rise and you just accept it, well that would have been like the CERN people jumping up and yelling about the faster than light result without attempting to verify the result, presenting it as concrete, and shouting down people that disagree.

 

I'm also not going to let myself get goaded into teaching class or doing calculations here. This is a logical discussion, not a pouring over of calculations. Mostly because even if I plugged in numbers there, would that make you any more likely to believe my word? I dont think so. I waste enough time here as it is.

 

What is the worse that can come from people over-reacting to carbon emissions? I see the biggest pro being that we become less dependent on foreign oil. What is the biggest con that you see?

The worst? Well foreign oil is part but not the entire cake, man. The biggest pro would be the spawned technologies - after all, necessity is the mother of invention - but at the same time, this "necessity" is contrived - because we're not going to even be able to measure the amount of temperature we've "saved or created" due to all of these efforts.

The biggest con is (mis)spending trillions worth of citizens' resources...to combat against an unproven bogeyman, with a line of attack not guaranteed to produce any results - and given the shaky foundations of AGW science, all of that combating will be done for naught. The biggest con is the lost potential of all of those resources - and not just from the USA, from any country the UN decides to penalize as having prospered too much.

In essence, retarding the progression of the human race over flawed science. It is hard enough for nations to prosper given all the internal and external BS - but having them further retarded for nothing???

 

Sorry, the onus is on the people demanding we spend 12+ figures combating the earth's roll. Prove this shit and I'd have no problem - but it aint even close - any bad result begins with "this model states..." and that's pretty much all that's needed for one to know the result is vastly embellished. In fact one of the bitches from climategate actually voiced the complaint of "people that dont believe in AGW would rather take a look at real world data, and ignore the models." Yeah Phil, they're taken with a grain of salt for good reason - its that little matter of nonphysical results.

 

 

Solar panels are getting pretty cheap IMO, if the government really did show a care they would cut the costs directly to the consumer instead of lining any potential rebates in red tape.

Pretty cheap - ok, are you considering all of the costs including how much of it is subsidized, or do you only see the price in front of you? Spain oversubsidized their stuff to such an extent that it was causing financial problems, then when they scaled back the size of the subsidy, the market for them started to tank. That's happening anywhere people are scaling back the subsidies - because they are still far too expensive to compete unless you have the entire country worth of taxpayers helping you pay for your solar panels. Why did Solyndra go bankrupt? How about that german solar company that just went under? Simple mismanagement of funds, or was there something else going on?

 

Back to another of my railings, the government attempting to decide what the market should think is a good idea. It doesnt make sense, so pour in a ton of taxpayer money to artificially create a market, and hope that it floats...its not with solar, yet...it would have came without the huge level of subsidy, just a little later in time.

 

[Informer]

What better way to prepare for our and our successors future? In the long term we could eliminate energy bills all together. Then the entire market could tank and it wouldn't matter.

[ralis]

Just did a little research and found that one of the leading global warming deniers i.e, Dr. Roy Spencer is an advocate of 'intelligent design' and he advocates that ID should be taught in public schools. Further, his published views railing against global warming are published by Encounter Books which is a publisher of conservative books. Encounter Books is funded by the Koch Bros. foundation. Other conservative funding includes; http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation, http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation. The Koch bros. father founded the 'John Birch Society' and the Bradley's have ties to the 'John Birch Society'.

 

The 'Heartland Institute' is included as funding the global warming deniers along with an ideology of antiregulation.

 

http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

 

"Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website."

 

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

 

This is where Joe finds all his propaganda.

[ralis]

The deniers cherry pick data i.e, temperature variations and fail to include all phenomena in the biosphere.

[Informer]

Just did a little research and found that one of the leading global warming deniers i.e, Dr. Roy Spencer is an advocate of 'intelligent design' and he advocates that ID should be taught in public schools. Further, his published views railing against global warming are published by Encounter Books which is a publisher of conservative books. Encounter Books is funded by the Koch Bros. foundation. Other conservative funding includes; http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_M._Olin_Foundation, http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lynde_and_Harry_Bradley_Foundation. The Koch bros. father founded the 'John Birch Society' and the Bradley's have ties to the 'John Birch Society'.

 

The 'Heartland Institute' is included as funding the global warming deniers along with an ideology of antiregulation.

 

http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

 

"Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website."

 

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

 

This is where Joe finds all his propaganda.

 

It's a sad when lobbyist wear the guise of scientists. What some people will do to have more, like it makes them better or something.

 

[Informer]

I think this attitude about having more than others puts you even further from any spiritual truths. That can be a lot of structure built on a perceived reality that equates to but a single aspect of actuality.

 

I can't see why Joe comes to a spiritual forum to preach materialism?

[Informer]

What is even more perturbing to me is that he seems to know about some spiritual work yet seems to have a gaping hole in his heart.