OT: Climate sensibility

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
And?

LDosser wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Has there been a measured increase in methane? If not then whatever the cows are producting is being removed somewhere else in equal measure.
This sort of argument by ridicule is effective until one thinks about it for a bit, then one realizes that one is being propagandized.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Kind of like pointing out that the CO2 is higher than it has been since humans have been measuring it and faiing to point out it has been a Whole Lot higher in the past?

LDosser wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Show me an argument by ridicule based in that concept.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I was suggesting 'propaganda. But you knew that.

LDosser wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
No, I was referring specifically to the method of argument. It bugs me when people who I basically agree with use cliched and misleading arguments because when people figure out that they've been mislead they tend to shoot both the messenger and the message.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
ummm... do you know how much carbon dioxide we have been pumping into the atmosphere on an annual basis? It's in the billions of tons.
Tons of a GAS. Billions.
And yet we still pump less than 1% of what is emitted by all other sources combined.

"Kevin" wrote: ------------------------------------- I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens! “Prediction is very difficult – especially if it is about the future.” - Niels Bohr ---------------------------------------- When you by them books and they eat the covers............
Lew

Kevin wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
And therein lies the problem, where "respected" apparently loses its meaning:
"And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers."
The "facts" are that the modeling data, which was the basis of the above statement, appears to have been destroyed/"misplaced", making peer review, if not impossible, too difficult to pursue.
This is very dubious "scientific method", and invites suspicion and doubt.
Are they that sloppy in their scientific method? Or do they have something to hide?
Come now, if they can't do a better job than this, "respect" does enter into the discussion.

Kevin wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Heh!
NATURE was one of the publications that boycotted climate-change skeptics.

  Quoted Text Here  
'most-respected'? And they engage in That level of rhetoric. 'formerly-respected' more like.
Climate models get tweaked to fit the expectations. BTST.

  Quoted Text Here  
Is climate-scepticism a "butch" thing?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:08:17 GMT, the infamous Bob Martin
  Quoted Text Here  
What is the alarmist's new agenda? Perhaps...
"Well, we ran out of luck and they discovered our cheating. Let's keep the sham going and attack their masculinity. Yeah, that ought to keep them busy and let us get on with our devious plans until we can find a new angle to cheat 'em." We'll see, eh?
OMG, I just thought of something. If male skeptics are butch, and all you guys are alarmist _believers_, does that make you...?
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------

  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, Dear!

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:31:25 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
  Quoted Text Here  
Don't be calling me that, especially after you're de-closeted, mister.
-- Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09

  Quoted Text Here  
Sorry, was the Benny Hill side. :o)

On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:30:02 -0800, the infamous "LDosser"
  Quoted Text Here  
I never realized he was gay until someone pointed me at the Wiki for him after his death. He had some nice nekkid girls on his show and he faked the macho thing well, I guess.
-- Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here? --Brett Stephens, WSJ Opinion 12/09/09

  Quoted Text Here  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_questions_about_sex.html
Are you a Moron? I was gainfully Employed in Climate Research for three years. I have seen the tweaking.

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 07:23:32 -0800 (PST), the infamous Kevin
Respected by whom? Perhaps fewer after that editorial.
  Quoted Text Here  
Ah, neutrality at last! Hmm, or is it? The first paragraph
"The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551)."
as well as their denying that anything substantive came from the leaks, makes it appear that my hope was dashed. Begone, alarmists! That editorial sure as shit wasn't peer-reviewed, bubba.
Feh!
-- Every day above ground is a Good Day(tm). -----------

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, and Russia now joins New Zealand and Australia for cherry-picked data to prove AGW::
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate - goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated- data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/>