Large Scale Central

A tale of two houses

General Discussion
#81
Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin Morris said:
In my recent reading I've actually seen the Southeast Asian tsunami mentioned in reports on global warming.
How can you say that an earthquake was caused by "Global Warming?" That is quite a stretch, even for you.
I didn't "say" it, I said that I read it. I was agreeing with Dr Deming. It was an example of what he was saying, that the popular media are not always accurate. That looks fairly clear in my sentence.
Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin Morris said:
Nothing in science is "known" or "unknown".
Except for "Global Warming," right? The debate is over, remember? Or, are you trying to have it both ways?
I don't understand what you are saying here. As for global warming, it is almost universally agreed. What doubt there is is related to the cause.
Steve Featherkile said:
Why do you call differing opinions "misinformation?" That is the kind of attitude that silenced Galileo. I think that is called tyranny.
I don't recall using that word, although it may have been in a quote.
Steve Featherkile said:
I think that Mark Twain said it best, "If you don't like the weather, just wait five minutes, it will change."
I assume Mark Twain was smart enough to seek shelter when he saw a storm coming. He probably did so without giving too much thought to the cause of the storm. Or did he conclude that the storm was a natural occurence and therefore he wouldn't get wet?
#82
Kevin Morris said:
Nothing in science is "known" or "unknown".
Steve Featherkile said:
Except for "Global Warming," right? The debate is over, remember? Or, are you trying to have it both ways?
Kevin Morris said:
I don't understand what you are saying here. As for global warming, it is almost universally agreed. What doubt there is is related to the cause.
First you say that nothing is known or unknown in science. Then you reverse course and say that as for global warming, it is universally known (agreed)...

You really are a kool aid drinker, aren’t you? You just will not consider another opinion.

This last is from the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Why those two subjects are lumped together is beyond me, but them much of what goes on in Washington DC is beyond me. Anyway… http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id

Chew on this for a while.

I believe it was Sir Josiah Stamp:

“The government are very keen on amassing statistics. They collect them, add them, raise them to the nth power, take the cube root and prepare wonderful diagrams. But you must never forget that every one of these figures comes in the first instance from the village watchman, who just puts down what he damn pleases.” (quoting an anonymous English judge.)

#83

This seems to be a fairly good statement to interject into the Global Warming debate -

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2007/08/06/the_sun,_stupid?page=full&comments=true

But I’m sure some will discount it because of the source.

Hot here in August, but it always is.

#84

Hello , chaps ,
I hope you are all ok ( except for the usual shotheads ) . I was prompted by a friend to look at this thread because of something I had posted earlier , the last time I mentioned it was Jan 16 .
In my post I warned you all to beware of the "global warming " brigade heading your way .
No real reply came forth . Now look where you are .
Perhaps you may sit up and take note of the latest money making scam in the name of preventing “global warming” (though it is called Congestion Easing)
Our leftie trendy non motoring Lord Mayor decided to introduce a climate cleaning tax by making people going to work in central London pay a 10 dollar a day fee for using their cars to so do .
He now proposes to charge fifty dollars to those upper class gits with big cars . Now , as only 8 % of the cars going into the zone of death are gas guzzlers , you may draw the conclusion that he is doing it for personal hate reasons .
Some of these rich gits were interviewed and asked what they intend to do . Most said they would use two small cars instead , thus negating any gain in congestion easing .
As your country now seems hell bent on following suit in this criminal pursuit of politics driven by envy , you may wish to educate yourselves a little more in what these creatures are going to put you through unless you stop them now .
Just be aware of this .
The “Global Warming” nutters now have as associates the “Anti Nuke Power brigade” , the “Don’t fly , it Causes Global Warming” mob the “Vegetarians and Vegans”—who incidentaally cause as much gas as a Wing of B52’s ----and so on .
"Global Warming " is now an industry .
Since its inception , it has created over 23000 new jobs ( paid for by the taxpayer ) dedictaed to the lunatic fringe as well as mainstream nutters .
For example ,you wish to do a project on how to prevent badgers being run over on the roads —no money for that .
So you change the title to "The effects of Global Warming on Badger Populations adjacent to roads " and BINGO !!! Thousnds of dollars and here’s a committee to help . All greens , all paid for . By guess who ?.
You’re too late , aren’t you ?
Look around you .
Think of the bloke who is making big , big money out of all these calumnies .
And protest --------- the planet is warming as part of a natural cycle , not by puny man .
186 bilion tons of CO2 rise into the atmosphere every year . only 6 billion of that is from man’s activities . The rest is from natural causes , though if we could ban volcanoes and decaying trees and vegetation and oceans from emitting CO2 , it would help . Simple sums show that the current hysteria for global warming is wasting money , fooling people , lining others’ pockets and is generally negative .
It ain’t happening folks , not the way they are telling it .
Don’t be fooled .
And please , keep Al Gore at home . Or send him to China and let him preach to them . Or India , Anywhere but here .
thanks ,
Mike

#85

But Mike, ex-politicians have to make a living too. :lol:

:stuck_out_tongue:

#86

Mike.

OMG! I’m on the wrong side of this issue!

Just think, I could come up with one of those cockamamie plans and be set for life! Not have to work and get paid for it. Not that I’m working now, but at least I’d get paid for it.

I’ll have to do some serious re-thinking. Thank you for showing me the light.

Let’s see, “Overweight armadillos are being underfed, caused by global warming!”

Or, how about, “The yellow breasted twit bird is loosing habitat to global warming CO2 gasses?”

That should do it.

SteveF

:lol: :stuck_out_tongue:

#87
Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin Morris said:
Nothing in science is "known" or "unknown".
Steve Featherkile said:
Except for "Global Warming," right? The debate is over, remember? Or, are you trying to have it both ways?
Kevin Morris said:
I don't understand what you are saying here. As for global warming, it is almost universally agreed. What doubt there is is related to the cause.
First you say that nothing is known or unknown in science. Then you reverse course and say that as for global warming, it is universally known (agreed)...
I chose those words carefully. "Known/unkown" are absolutes, while "... almost universally agreed" implies a consensus of opinion. You have, I suspect, deliberately misquoted me.
Steve Featherkile said:
You really are a kool aid drinker, aren't you? You just will not consider another opinion.
Bzzt! Penalty! That's a personal insult. Opinions are like a$$holes - everybody has one. I look to the opinions of accredited scientists, working in the field of their claimed expertise, and working within an atmosphere of reasonably objective study. You respond with self-contradictory novelists, unsubstantiated bloggers, tabloid journalists and one scientist who is no longer working in the field.
Steve Featherkile said:
This last is from the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works. Why those two subjects are lumped together is beyond me, but them much of what goes on in Washington DC is beyond me. Anyway... http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id
Another blogger! An official government position paper would surely use less emotional language and would, hopefully, check their spelling. Those of us who have passed 40 years know about "climactic change" but I doubt anyone would link that to climatic change ;-)

Nevertheless, he has an impressive list of 12 credible scientists, all of whom agree that global warming is occurring. He could also have cited “The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, an international organization of over 30,000 earth scientists …”, whose official position is that they agree with global warming.

I wonder how many “climatologists” work for/with the various accredited bodies I’ve cited so far, eg. the official weather bureaus of the USA, Canada, Australia, U.K., etc.

By the way. Are they the same committee that regards Michael Crichton as an expert witness on climate?

So I’ll see your blogger and raise you:
http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/intro.pdf
Especially note the top of page 9. It’s a pdf, so I can’t readily cut and paste the paragraph.

There’s some good reading here as well
http://www.climatescience.gov/
In case you want to know who the CCSP is, “CCSP was established by President Bush in 2002 to integrate federal research on global environmental change at 13 federal agencies, and to provide the nation with science-based knowledge to manage the risks and opportunities of change in the climate and related environmental systems.”

Steve Featherkile said:
I believe it was Sir Josiah Stamp:

“The government are very keen on amassing statistics. They collect them, add them, raise them to the nth power, take the cube root and prepare wonderful diagrams. But you must never forget that every one of these figures comes in the first instance from the village watchman, who just puts down what he damn pleases.” (quoting an anonymous English judge.)


Clearly a credible source on climatology.

#88
Ric Golding said:
This seems to be a fairly good statement to interject into the Global Warming debate -

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2007/08/06/the_sun,_stupid?page=full&comments=true

But I’m sure some will discount it because of the source.


This guy is a much better writer than Ezra Levant. OK, enough with the compliments. While Levant at least cited a reference, this guy is using intuitive reasoning to arrive at an unsubstantiated conclusion. His conclusion is that the accredited climatologists doing accredited research within the framework of accredited scientific bodies and publishing in the peer-reviewed scientific press are wrong and he’s right, without even bothering to offer any evidence other than the observation that the sun is really big.

I’m still enjoying this discussion and have done some fascinating reading, but please don’t give me unsubstantiated articles from tabloid journalists and bloggers. Steve at least gave Dr Deming, a real scientist to consider.

The truth is that we all better hope like hell that global warming is caused by human activity. If it is then we may be able to do something about it. If it’s not, and the trend continues, then the future may be … unpleasant.

#89

I wish you guys would stop giving Al Gore such a hard way to go, if he hadn’t invented the internet you guys would have had to carry on this conversation on the phone or face to face ! :stuck_out_tongue:

#90
Gary Buchanan said:
I wish you guys would stop giving Al Gore such a hard way to go, if he hadn't invented the internet you guys would have had to carry on this conversation on the phone or face to face ! :p
Did Al Gore really invent the internet?

I sincerely believe that if Steve and I were having this discussion face to face, we would be doing so over a glass of Scotch and would be having a good time. Reasonable people can disagree without the discussion becoming hateful.

About a hundred years ago we would be doing this by writing letters. Then we would both die and some smarmy journalist would publish our letters and get a Pulitzer Prize :wink:

#91
Kevin said:
I chose those words carefully. "Known/unkown" are absolutes, while "... almost universally agreed" implies a consensus of opinion.
Exactly. Known and unknown are science, while consensus is, as you say, merely opinion, and we now all know what you think of opinions. That is why my physics prof said, "We start with a know value for X..." and so on. My math professor, Dr Nakagama, who by the way was a failed Kamikaze pilot (the 500 lb bomb that he carried aboard his Kate bomber failed to go off when he crashed into the Fletcher class destroyer that my uncle served as gun captain of mount 51 while aboard. Later, in 1966, my college roommate made his 3rd Class Midshipman Cruise aboard her. It is a small world, I just wish I could remember the ship's name.) Anyway, Dr Nakagama would say, "It is empirically obvious to the most casual observer that if we take this known value of X and apply it to the unknown value of Y, then..." Neither of them ever said, it is almost universally agreed that..., or that the consensus is...

The “blogger” cites numerous scientists who are currently in the field. I notice that you failed to take any of them on.

I can’t take any scientist who works for the gummint seriously, unfortunately. They have all been told to spout the “Party Line,” or loose their job.

Am I correct in thinking that you, Kevin, and I agree that while there might be some slight warming in progress, that it is not caused by man’s activities? Actually, we are expecting a banner year for snow at 49 Degrees North, our local world class ski hill that no one has heard of. :smiley: The caterpillars have a thick coat this year, a sure sign of a hard winter.

I drink Kentucky Sippin’ Whiskey. (Bourbon) Maker’s Mark, to be specific.

Algore did say that he invented the Internet. That statement alone probably cost him the 2000 election.

SteveF

#92
Steve Featherkile said:
Kevin said:
I chose those words carefully. "Known/unkown" are absolutes, while "... almost universally agreed" implies a consensus of opinion.
Exactly. Known and unknown are science, while consensus is, as you say, merely opinion, and we now all know what you think of opinions.
You've misquoted me again. I said "nothing in science is 'known' or 'unknown'." Scientists tend to use extremely cautious terms in their publications and especially their conclusions, eg. "The data suggest ...". It's the popular media that tends to speak with certainlty, ignoring any cautionary language that the researcher may have used.

And there’s nothing “mere” about opinions. If nothing is known or unknown in empirical science then all we have is considered opinion or best guess. But some opinions carry more weight than others. When it comes to matters of climate, the opinions of a climatologist carry more weight with me than, say, a plumber. The values are reversed if we’re talking about drainage.

Steve Featherkile said:
That is why my physics prof said, "We start with a know value for X..." and so on. My math professor, Dr Nakagama, who by the way was a failed Kamikaze pilot (the 500 lb bomb that he carried aboard his Kate bomber failed to go off when he crashed into the Fletcher class destroyer that my uncle served as gun captain of mount 51 while aboard. Later, in 1966, my college roommate made his 3rd Class Midshipman Cruise aboard her. It is a small world, I just wish I could remember the ship's name.) Anyway, Dr Nakagama would say, "It is empirically obvious to the most casual observer that if we take this known value of X and apply it to the unknown value of Y, then..." Neither of them ever said, it is almost universally agreed that..., or that the consensus is...
Classroom physics and math teaching is not the same thing as empirical research. When creating a formula for teaching purposes, you're in absolute control. You get to specify the absolute values. This is not the case in the real world. For example, the teacher may specify a piece of wood is 3' long, but when you try to measure it in the real world, the length depends on how many decimal places you want to measure to. This is the uncertainty of science that the popular press focusses on.
Steve Featherkile said:
The "blogger" cites numerous scientists who are currently in the field. I notice that you failed to take any of them on.
Can you lead me to any of their publications?
Steve Featherkile said:
I can't take any scientist who works for the gummint seriously, unfortunately. They have all been told to spout the "Party Line," or loose their job.
But you readily accept anything in print that supports you point of view, regardless of the source.
Steve Featherkile said:
Am I correct in thinking that you, Kevin, and I agree that while there might be some slight warming in progress, that it is not caused by man's activities?
To tell the truth, I'm undecided on this, but I'm leaning heavily toward the views of respected scientific bodies and the credible scientific press. I also wouldn't use the term "slight". A degree or two in the oceans is a big deal.

My firm view is that I sincerely hope we’re causing it. And regardless of its actual cause(s), I sincerely believe we should act as if it’s a man made phenomenon.

Tackling the other big pollution issues in the past has cost practically nothing and has given us better cars, better appliances, etc. How tragic would it be to watch bad things happen, knowing we could have done something about it but chose not to for fear of upsetting oil industry profits.

Steve Featherkile said:
[I drink Kentucky Sippin' Whiskey. (Bourbon) Maker's Mark, to be specific.
Dang! I guess we'll need 2 bottles.
Steve Featherkile said:
Algore did say that he invented the Internet. That statement alone probably cost him the 2000 election.
Wow!
#93

I find this discussion to be funny, in a frightening sort of way…

Its like the crew of the Titanic arguing vemonently whether the cause of the ships damage was the iceburg itself, the ships design, or the crews actions prior to the collision…all while the ship sinks lower in the water…:open_mouth:

As I said earler, the ultimate cause is becoming irrelevent, its the reaction we take to deal with it that counts…

#94
Steve Featherkile said:
....................................

Algore did say that he invented the Internet. That statement alone probably cost him the 2000 election.

SteveF


Holy cow, Steve,

I’m getting used to history being rewritten, but could you at least give it 15 years so my memory has a chance to fade. 2000 is just too close!

OTOH I seem to remember way too much from way too long ago. What I haven’t found out yet: does it drive those who would just as soon forget sufficiently bonkers to make it worthwhile to remember the stuff? Ahhh hmmm , I guess it depends. :wink: :slight_smile: :wink: :lol:

PS You’re on reasonably safe ground as long as you don’t tell me that “Now Defunct” invented 45mm track gauge. :lol: :lol:

#95
Victor Smith said:
I find this discussion to be funny, in a frightening sort of way...

Its like the crew of the Titanic arguing vemonently whether the cause of the ships damage was the iceburg itself, the ships design, or the crews actions prior to the collision…all while the ship sinks lower in the water…:open_mouth:

As I said earler, the ultimate cause is becoming irrelevent, its the reaction we take to deal with it that counts…


Vic,

How about each time posting Nero fiddling while the place burns?

#96

OK , here is something else to think about .
These are facts .
When I was 17 , I joined the Regular Forces . In due time , I was posted to some hot–very hot —countries . Most of these countries are now tourist destinations . No accounting for taste , but they are .
Whilst serving in these hot spots , we were encouraged–nay , ordered , to walk around half naked , mainly just in shorts and flip flops For the most part we remained in rude health .
At that time , I can tell you without fear of contraception , that the atmosphere on earth was yukky . Clean the windows and magic muck appeared before 24 hours was past . You could barely see a mile across my home city , except on Sundays when you couldn’t hear for noise pollution . Or church bells —take your pick .
Just about every house in the UK had a coal fire going 24/7 . Makes car pollution look a bit tame .
Hot countries ? Similar , but not quite so bad . Hardly any churches , but lots of lousy smoggy crap . And we stayed in rude health .

THEN , ALONG CAME THE DREADED CLEAN AIR ACT .

Before that , I had never heard of skin cancer . I have asked many of my contemporaries —they do not remember skin cancer except as a recent disease .
Think of the incidence of it now . Rampant .
Yet my early service life was spent overseas with National Service chappies , thousands of them , more than you get tourists at the moment . More than you will ever get , AND they spent a minimum of 18 months in theatre . So there’s millions of man hours of exposure to the sun , and no mention of skin cancer . Casualties from skin cancer in WW2 ? None . Zilch . But millions of young healthy chaps ran around half naked all over the world .

SO , what went wrong ?

Do not meddle until you know what you are doing .

I have posed this question to many of the erudite ( don’t make me larf ) peoples of universities who specialise in spouting crap about global warming —and not one has had the courtesy to reply . None . Zilch . I hasten to add that the query was posed politely , not as a challenge ,more as a simple question .

So which one of you is going to say I am talking crap ? Come on , pseudo scientists , what’s gone wrong ?

Because you cannot deny that what I have said is fact . You know all about global warming , show us your mettle with this one .

We need to know .

Mike

#97
Mike Morgan said:
OK , here is something else to think about . These are facts . When I was 17 , I joined the Regular Forces . In due time , I was posted to some hot--very hot ---countries . Most of these countries are now tourist destinations . No accounting for taste , but they are . Whilst serving in these hot spots , we were encouraged--nay , ordered , to walk around half naked , mainly just in shorts and flip flops For the most part we remained in rude health . At that time , I can tell you without fear of contraception , that the atmosphere on earth was yukky . Clean the windows and magic muck appeared before 24 hours was past . You could barely see a mile across my home city , except on Sundays when you couldn't hear for noise pollution . Or church bells ---take your pick . Just about every house in the UK had a coal fire going 24/7 . Makes car pollution look a bit tame . Hot countries ? Similar , but not quite so bad . Hardly any churches , but lots of lousy smoggy crap . And we stayed in rude health .

THEN , ALONG CAME THE DREADED CLEAN AIR ACT .

Before that , I had never heard of skin cancer . I have asked many of my contemporaries —they do not remember skin cancer except as a recent disease .
Think of the incidence of it now . Rampant .
Yet my early service life was spent overseas with National Service chappies , thousands of them , more than you get tourists at the moment . More than you will ever get , AND they spent a minimum of 18 months in theatre . So there’s millions of man hours of exposure to the sun , and no mention of skin cancer . Casualties from skin cancer in WW2 ? None . Zilch . But millions of young healthy chaps ran around half naked all over the world .

SO , what went wrong ?

Do not meddle until you know what you are doing .

I have posed this question to many of the erudite ( don’t make me larf ) peoples of universities who specialise in spouting crap about global warming —and not one has had the courtesy to reply . None . Zilch . I hasten to add that the query was posed politely , not as a challenge ,more as a simple question .

So which one of you is going to say I am talking crap ? Come on , pseudo scientists , what’s gone wrong ?

Because you cannot deny that what I have said is fact . You know all about global warming , show us your mettle with this one .

We need to know .

Mike


Are you seriously asking us to believe that skin cancers did not occur because of the yukky atmposphere?

Also.

Mike Morgan said:
SNIP At that time , I can tell you without fear of contraception , that the atmosphere on earth was yukky . SNIP Mike
Mike I thought you knew the difference between contraception and contradiction. ;)
#98

Tony ,
Why not ? There is as much in the way of good solid reasons for that hypothesis as there is in so called “global warming” .

As to your second point , could my misunderstanding of these terms account for the number of little morgans running around all over the globe ?
Been there , done that , impregnated that .

Mike

#99

Guys, like it or not, it all comes down to that old Jerry McGuire movie, “Show me the money”. Most of the people talking of the doom and gloom of “Global Warming” are either making money off their created crisis or trying to convince someone that it is worthwhile to support their studies of “Global Warming”. Many are highly educated, under achieving parasites that have to create a crisis to get their next bit of grant money to justify their existence.

And Kevin, your statement - " but please don’t give me unsubstantiated articles from tabloid journalists and bloggers. Steve at least gave Dr Deming, a real scientist to consider."

I have to take that as being nothing more than rude. I don’t believe you and I will ever be able to agree on anything. If your conversation is private between you and Steve, take it elsewhere than on a comon forum. I added a statement for the benefit of those bothering to read this trash. Take it or leave it. You may look at a scientist as an authority. I look at scientist as money grabbing gold diggers trying to make a theory to support their life style.

#100

Wow, Ric! We now know where you stand…:smiley:

I have to admit similar thoughts were going through my mind. Kevin, not trying to put you down, but how can you trust government agencies that have their own agendas…and survival is one of them? Government agencies have been known time and again to rewrite science (and history) to meet that agenda or agendas of the current administration or congress. At this point neither side in the global warming controversy has said anything that would convince me one way or the other. I have my own beliefs but I have yet to see anyone professional or otherwise say anything to sway me one way or the other.

Maybe Mike has something with his “skin cancer” theory, or maybe he doesn’t. I don’t know. Personally I’ve not seen any noticeable increase.

My opinion is that this whole “scare” is being orchestrated by big business, self serving money grubbers, washed out politicians and agencies with their own personal agendas. I feel that if we tackle air quality in larger cities, deforestization of places like the Amazon, find better, renewable energy sources, and place some controls on population growth this planet would be a better place to live. But I doubt it will ever occur without greed and hidden agendas getting in the way.