 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/8/2017 3:58 PM, clipka wrote:
> You do know that, say, 1000 years ago the sun had already been around,
> and in pretty much its current form, right?
But its output does vary. Don't forget it was bloody cold in Europe
during The Maunder Minimum.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.05.2017 um 17:59 schrieb Stephen:
> On 5/8/2017 3:58 PM, clipka wrote:
>> You do know that, say, 1000 years ago the sun had already been around,
>> and in pretty much its current form, right?
>
>
> But its output does vary. Don't forget it was bloody cold in Europe
> during The Maunder Minimum.
Yes, there are some fluctuations in solar output.
For instance, since 1960 the solar output has been declining.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> For instance, since 1960 the solar output has been declining.
See???!! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!
_Impending threat_ of another ICE AGE!!!!
Panic!
Pass more legislation without reading it!
"We" _must_ ***DO*** ........... SOMETHING!!!!
Sorry, I just find the claim that human generated CO2 is the be-all end-all
cause of "global warming" --- I mean, "Climate Change".
Correlation does not imply causation, and
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
And all I see is some pretty fishy things going on, with agendas and computer
models, and people being pretty fast and loose with whatever facts there might
be, and massaging and manipulating and cherry picking the data, and then
shouting down anyone who dares even question the premise, the model(s), or the
conclusion.
I was a scientist in a past life, and I got to get a long, close look at the way
the game is played, and who the players are. Take 5 minutes, and look into even
the mundane fields - and they're rife with vested interest.
I've regularly seen people take "creative license" with reporting research
results, avoiding doing the obvious experiment because that would settle the
issue right away and therefore end funding, make the most tenuous of
hypothetical connections between their pet research project and "cancer
research", diabetes, you-name-it. I was struggling with the latest "Here, go
cut down the largest tree in the forest with ---- A HERRING!" project, when my
research "advisor" told me to "just get the data for your thesis" (*). I said,
"What do you want me to do --- lie?"
His response: "If you have to."
That's pretty much when I quit.
There's plenty of things in the world of "science" that I just don't trust.
https://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/89/i28/8928notw1.html
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/08/04/why-did-a-chemistry-journal-fix-fraud-with-a-correction-instead-of-a-retraction/
https://nzic.org.nz/CiNZ/articles/CiNZ%20Jul%202011_rubin.pdf
http://cen.acs.org/articles/88/i32/Fraud-Chemistry.html?type=paidArticleContent
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/chemistrys-colossal-fraud/3000886.article
just to give a taste.
Then there's the issue that over 10% of the things that people submit to a
journal - where they know the results are going to be checked for accuracy and
reproducibility, and the scientists have everything right there in front of
them, on a manageable scale, and all the equipment to unambiguously see what's
going on - aren't able to be reproduced.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/op500341h
But you're gonna tell me that I need to TRUST ---- an entire pyramid and chain
of things to the point where we're going to put a _government_ in control of
people's livelihoods on that basis alone....
Nope.
[So glad this is in off-topic, otherwise I'd request a povray.politics
subgroup... :D ]
(*) You had to be there, to know that I'd been trying _everything_ in [and out
of] the book to "get it done", and really hear _the tone_ and see the manner
that was used, to properly interpret what was being said. That he just came
right out and replied to my question that way was pretty surprising.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 08.05.2017 um 19:04 schrieb Bald Eagle:
> Sorry, I just find the claim that human generated CO2 is the be-all end-all
> cause of "global warming" --- I mean, "Climate Change".
>
> Correlation does not imply causation, and
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
No scientist in their sane mind will say "climate change is /all/
human-made". But it's a pretty clear fact that humans have a major
influence on climate change -- more specifically, on the climate change
seen in the last 30 years.
Correlation does not imply causation, but /absence/ of correlation
clearly implies the absence of causation - and in the last 30 years
scientists are seeing changes in the climate without correlation to
/any/ natural causes.
Moreover, the scientists' arguments in favour of major human
contribution to climate change are not just from correlation -- it is
from a pretty clear understanding of the mechanism behind it.
You want extraordinary proof? It's right in front of your nose: The last
30 years have seen climate change in a magnitude that has rarely been
seen in nature before, with a remarkable absence of correlation to all
the usual culprits found in nature associated with such events.
With the only exception of greenhouse gases -- the increase of which is,
again, remarkably uncorrelated to all the known natural causes, e.g.
volcanism.
On the other side of the aisle there's the unprecedented situation that
a staggering amount of CO2 that had been eliminated from the atmosphere
over the course of millions and millions of years and deposited in the
form of carbohydrates has been introduced back into the atmosphere in
essentially just a single century.
It is a long-recognized fact that the sun's output (or, more precisely,
the sun's input to earth) has been slowly increasing throughout all
those millions and millions of years, and it had already been an
accepted fact, long before man-made climate change was even a topic,
that this increase in solar energy has been just about canceled out by a
steady elimination of CO2 from the atmosphere over the same time, so
that Eath happens to have kept a habitable climate.
And now that all this CO2 is re-released you expect it to have _no_
effect on climate whatsoever?
> But you're gonna tell me that I need to TRUST ---- an entire pyramid and chain
> of things to the point where we're going to put a _government_ in control of
> people's livelihoods on that basis alone....
And what if YOU are wrong?
If I am wrong, then in the worst case we'll waste lots and lots of money
to achieve independence from fossil fuels decades earlier than we'd have
to. (Because face it: Ultimately the fossil fuel reserves /will/ be used
up. And in the best case the money spent won't even be wasted, just
spent earlier.)
If YOU are wrong, we'll waste the one and only place we can call our
home. And not even just for us, but potentially for all life.
So pray tell me, on which side would YOU prefer to err if there's nobody
we can really trust?
Also, achieving the ability to live from only what the sun gives us on a
day-to-day basis might have the beneficial side effect on reducing the
frequency of international conflicts.
And when I ask, "cui bono?" I always keep coming up with the same
answer: There are some very powerful and well-established interest
groups that benefit a lot from keeping the world entangled with fossil
fuels; on the other hand, at least from my seat, the interest groups
that would benefit from getting the world out of the fossil fuel trap
seem to be mostly underdogs, some of which weren't even around when the
scientific discussion about human-made climate change started.
So if we should be wary of manipulation, then isn't the powerful
pro-fossil-fuel faction the one we should be most wary of?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sorry, I just find the claim that human generated CO2 is the be-all end-all
> cause of "global warming" --- I mean, "Climate Change".
>
> Correlation does not imply causation, and
Correlation of what? Man-made CO2 output and atmospheric CO2 levels? Or
atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature? Both have pretty good
(and not too difficult for the non-scientist to understand) physical
explanations for the causation link.
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
It depends on the potential outcomes. You'd probably not want to wait
until you were 99% sure you were going to die of heart disease before
changing your lifestyle and allowing doctors to help you. Whenever
assessing any risk or failure mode, you need to take into account both
the chance of something happening AND how severe that event is.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 May 2017 20:13:03 +0200, clipka wrote:
> So if we should be wary of manipulation, then isn't the powerful
> pro-fossil-fuel faction the one we should be most wary of?
Indeed. It always strikes me as interesting that climate change deniers
always point to the (apparently) lavish lifestyles of scientists as the
'vested interests' that make them lie about the data, but are happy to
ignore the actual profit-driven lies put out by the petroleum industry.
Because we all know that OPEC is all about low environmental impact and
dealing with ecological disasters they cause in a manner that keeps
people safe, regardless of the impact to their profits.
m-/
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/9/2017 4:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 May 2017 20:13:03 +0200, clipka wrote:
>
>> So if we should be wary of manipulation, then isn't the powerful
>> pro-fossil-fuel faction the one we should be most wary of?
>
> Indeed. It always strikes me as interesting that climate change deniers
> always point to the (apparently) lavish lifestyles of scientists as the
> 'vested interests' that make them lie about the data, but are happy to
> ignore the actual profit-driven lies put out by the petroleum industry.
>
> Because we all know that OPEC is all about low environmental impact and
> dealing with ecological disasters they cause in a manner that keeps
> people safe, regardless of the impact to their profits.
>
> m-/
>
I'm keeping out of this one. I spent 20 years working for oil companies.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 09 May 2017 19:09:43 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 5/9/2017 4:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 08 May 2017 20:13:03 +0200, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> So if we should be wary of manipulation, then isn't the powerful
>>> pro-fossil-fuel faction the one we should be most wary of?
>>
>> Indeed. It always strikes me as interesting that climate change
>> deniers always point to the (apparently) lavish lifestyles of
>> scientists as the 'vested interests' that make them lie about the data,
>> but are happy to ignore the actual profit-driven lies put out by the
>> petroleum industry.
>>
>> Because we all know that OPEC is all about low environmental impact and
>> dealing with ecological disasters they cause in a manner that keeps
>> people safe, regardless of the impact to their profits.
>>
>> m-/
>>
>>
> I'm keeping out of this one. I spent 20 years working for oil companies.
I remember. :)
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I should feel guilty, I think.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 2017-05-09 16:36, also sprach Stephen:
> I should feel guilty, I think.
I demand restitution! I have been moderately inconvenienced!
--
dik
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
