Harold Squared Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Are you talking about the discovery of a Northwest Passage? Not just years - why deprecate the effort? It was centuries, and it cost lives as well as treasure. Not even the natives knew of one, even in legend. And then one year is was found easily, and now it's getting to be routine. They find one almost every year now, now, with little effort. Actually I was referring to the recent "discovery" that the 15 year plus hiatus in temperature rise was a statistical error. Your claim regarding the Northwest Passage, if true, is simply another anecdote and an unsurprising one at that, since the polar regions are known to be variable. So I hope the matter is clarified. The anecdotes are in hopes that they might convince you where mountains of evidence has failed. Most relate to tales of experiences of other human beings best. Give someone the quantity that a Californian almond farm pumps out of the ground and their eyes glaze over. Tell someone about a family watching their well dry up as a result and they take note. You've got all kinds of charts and reports posted in this thread. There is video and/or satellite imagery of the principally impacted areas out there online. You don't want anecdotes, okay. Then what evidence would convince you? Not sloppy emotional appeal. How is AGW supposed to affect groundwater reserves? I know one goddam thing, that problem is not confined to California. Maybe you want to start a thread on the subject. If you do, I have an answer to the predicament, NUCLEAR DESALINATION. But to return to the topic, I bumped into a rare story attributing something BENIGN to global warming, a pattern of greater than usual rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa from FOX News. Another crappy anecdote, but it is so rare to hear anything good from Africa or about "climate change", I thought I would mention it. It certainly does not affect my observations of the AGW cult in any substantial way. Edited June 9, 2015 by Harold Squared
overtone Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 Your claim regarding the Northwest Passage, if true, is simply another anecdote and an unsurprising one at that, since the polar regions are known to be variable. Anecdote? You have no idea what anyone is talking about here, do you? Perhaps you should do some background research into exactly what this is you do not believe. -1
Harold Squared Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) Anecdote? You have no idea what anyone is talking about here, do you? Perhaps you should do some background research into exactly what this is you do not believe. ANECDOTE: n. A short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person In the most recent use, your account of the Northwest Passage. I believe that clarifies the goddam matter, Brother. Edited June 9, 2015 by Harold Squared -2
Unity+ Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 ANALOGY, for God's sake look it up. If intentional fires of various kinds were not maintained in electrical generation plants here and there, there would be no idiotic arguments on the Internet. I am confused. This was simply an analogy? It doesn't remove the fact that your claims have no evidence. I am done here.
Harold Squared Posted June 9, 2015 Posted June 9, 2015 (edited) What a relief. Hopefully someone who can follow the argument will step in to fill those big clown shoes that are vacant now. Anecdotal evidence, for those new to the fray, are little stories about too much rain here, too little rain there, excessive heat, excessive cold, wells drying up, lost puppies, etc. Generally they have no scientific merit and are calculated to appeal to the emotions. The popular press is full of them. Speaking of emotional appeal and as previously mentioned, a notorious example would be the infamous film, "An Inconvenient Truth". Al Gore, professional politician and mediocre undergraduate science student was present when this piece of tripe won an Academy Award in 2007. On that occasion, Gore cited the issue not as scientific and denied its blatant political nature. According to Gore, it is a MORAL issue. CULT ALERT Oh, yeah, I am supposed to cite my source. Wikipedia, mostly because it is convenient. And the information is consistent with what I know to be true of Gore, et al, and messianic cults. Edited June 10, 2015 by Harold Squared -5
overtone Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) But to return to the topic, I bumped into a rare story attributing something BENIGN to global warming, a pattern of greater than usual rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa from FOX News. - - - - - Anecdotal evidence, for those new to the fray, are little stories about too much rain here, too little rain there, excessive heat, excessive cold, wells drying up, lost puppies, etc. Generally they have no scientific merit and are calculated to appeal to the emotions. The popular press is full of them. Indeed. And there's a sucker born every minute, whose intellectual fate is to "bump into" things on Fox News. And the information is consistent with what I know to be true of Gore, et al, and messianic cults These guys (the ones who bump into things on Fox News, and repost them on scientific forums) are obsessed with Al Gore, who is seldom referred to and never cited as a source by anyone here except them. Edited June 10, 2015 by overtone
Harold Squared Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Dude, chill. I am just trying to comply with moderator requests to identify my sources and describe why I believe them to have some degree of accuracy. The Sahel thingy is clearly described as ANECDOTAL in exactly that word and of passing interest only, a curiosity and an example. The Gore thing is a case of emotional appeal, which also has no legitimate place in the scientific discussion. A leading figure among the Brethren and influential career politician, Gore has no scientific credentials worthy of the name. Sources, same as above. Rationale, similar. Reaction of overtone, no sources cited. Double standard, obvious.
overtone Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Reaction of overtone, no sources cited. I quoted my source. Do you need a cite, to identify it? The Sahel thingy is clearly described as ANECDOTAL in exactly that word and of passing interest only, a curiosity and an example An example of the kind of stuff one finds on Fox News, of interest to those who get their anecdotal evidence from Fox News. The Gore thing is a case of emotional appeal, - - And you're the guy bringing him up, and referring to him, something that only denialists do around here. Hello? Edited June 10, 2015 by overtone
Strange Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 The Gore thing is a case of emotional appeal, which also has no legitimate place in the scientific discussion. A leading figure among the Brethren and influential career politician, Gore has no scientific credentials worthy of the name. Then why do you keep brining him up? (I would barely be aware of him if it weren't for you and your ilk.)
Harold Squared Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Then why do you keep brining him up? (I would barely be aware of him if it weren't for you and your ilk.) Because he is probably the best known promoter of the hypothesis. Which is kind of weird when you compare AGW to other scientific theories. As far as I am aware, there is no comparable figure for relativity, or quantum mechanics, or of course, Darwinism. If you can point one out, that would be pretty cool but be sure to cite your sources and describe why you consider them reliable. On behalf of my ilk, thanks in advance. And really, if you want to trot out some cartoons or whatever, feel free, or is that Inow's schtik? Source: the depths of my heart.
Strange Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Because he is probably the best known promoter of the hypothesis. Mainly to denialists, as far as I can tell. As I say, I would never have heard of him if denialists didn't keep trotting him out as their preferred expert as a way of avoiding the science.
iNow Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Because he is probably the best known promoter of the hypothesis.Sorry, but no. Please try again. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+climate+change
Strange Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Sorry, but no. Please try again. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+climate+change Interestingly, adding "gore" to that search mainly returns research on newspaper reporting (especially tabloids), public perceptions, etc. (I imagine the same would be true if you added the name of any prominent individuals or tabloids who are outspoken for or against the topic.)
Harold Squared Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Sorry, but no. Please try again. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+climate+change Oh, I intend to try again and again to find a figure analogous to Gore in previous scientific controversies. Any help you guys can provide would be welcome. By the way, I just got up so I can't have read all the cited works,(thanks for them, incidentally), but I notice that LM Bouwer's work in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society(2001) states that AGW is not as yet the cause of increased losses from adverse weather events(I paraphrase, of course). In light of this, is Bouwer one of my "ilk"? Interestingly, adding "gore" to that search mainly returns research on newspaper reporting (especially tabloids), public perceptions, etc. (I imagine the same would be true if you added the name of any prominent individuals or tabloids who are outspoken for or against the topic.) Do I detect a bit of HAND WAVING aka conjecture there, Brother? Nah, couldn't be. But if the topic of the thread is who is a skeptic and for what reasons, and Gore is commonly cited by said persons, Gore and his methods must surely be fair game in the discussion. Anyhow, he(Gore) is on YOUR side of the fence, and garnered all sorts of goodies for championing YOUR cause, and you guys are acting all ashamed of him, like. Like a pariah, really- where is your loyalty, you'll hurt his feelings if he ever finds out, poor devil. -2
Ten oz Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 What a relief. Hopefully someone who can follow the argument will step in to fill those big clown shoes that are vacant now. Anecdotal evidence, for those new to the fray, are little stories about too much rain here, too little rain there, excessive heat, excessive cold, wells drying up, lost puppies, etc. Generally they have no scientific merit and are calculated to appeal to the emotions. The popular press is full of them. Speaking of emotional appeal and as previously mentioned, a notorious example would be the infamous film, "An Inconvenient Truth". Al Gore, professional politician and mediocre undergraduate science student was present when this piece of tripe won an Academy Award in 2007. On that occasion, Gore cited the issue not as scientific and denied its blatant political nature. According to Gore, it is a MORAL issue. CULT ALERT Oh, yeah, I am supposed to cite my source. Wikipedia, mostly because it is convenient. And the information is consistent with what I know to be true of Gore, et al, and messianic cults. The opening of the Northern Passage is not akin to it raining more in one city than another and vice versa. The Artic is a huge continent size region. Russia, China, Canada, and the United States are all investing billions and making territory claims in preperation for a permanent passage opening year round. This is not just a one or two time small occurence but rather a major change that is transforming shipping, mining, defense security, and re-drawing the map.
dimreepr Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 (edited) Oh, I intend to try again and again to find a figure analogous to Gore in previous scientific controversies. Any help you guys can provide would be welcome. By the way, I just got up so I can't have read all the cited works,(thanks for them, incidentally), but I notice that LM Bouwer's work in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society(2001) states that AGW is not as yet the cause of increased losses from adverse weather events(I paraphrase, of course). In light of this, is Bouwer one of my "ilk"? Do I detect a bit of HAND WAVING aka conjecture there, Brother? Nah, couldn't be. But if the topic of the thread is who is a skeptic and for what reasons, and Gore is commonly cited by said persons, Gore and his methods must surely be fair game in the discussion. Anyhow, he(Gore) is on YOUR side of the fence, and garnered all sorts of goodies for championing YOUR cause, and you guys are acting all ashamed of him, like. Like a pariah, really- where is your loyalty, you'll hurt his feelings if he ever finds out, poor devil. Come on guys, seriously, when are we going to learn? Edited June 10, 2015 by dimreepr 2
swansont Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Oh, I intend to try again and again to find a figure analogous to Gore in previous scientific controversies. Any help you guys can provide would be welcome. What scientific controversies did you have in mind? And note that AGW (much like creationism/evolution) is not a *scientific* controversy, it is an ideological/political one. The objections contain almost no science whatsoever. But if the topic of the thread is who is a skeptic and for what reasons, and Gore is commonly cited by said persons, Gore and his methods must surely be fair game in the discussion. Anyhow, he(Gore) is on YOUR side of the fence, and garnered all sorts of goodies for championing YOUR cause, and you guys are acting all ashamed of him, like. Like a pariah, really- where is your loyalty, you'll hurt his feelings if he ever finds out, poor devil. Case in point. The people discussing science don't bring up Gore. It's the people not discussing science that do.
Ten oz Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Making issues about individuals rather than research allows for the uniformed to throw stones. Climate data is collected by organizations like NASA and NOAA and not by individual politicians or pundits.
Phi for All Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 Nah, couldn't be. But if the topic of the thread is who is a skeptic and for what reasons, and Gore is commonly cited by said persons, Gore and his methods must surely be fair game in the discussion. Anyhow, he(Gore) is on YOUR side of the fence, and garnered all sorts of goodies for championing YOUR cause, and you guys are acting all ashamed of him, like. Like a pariah, really- where is your loyalty, you'll hurt his feelings if he ever finds out, poor devil. What scientific controversies did you have in mind? And note that AGW (much like creationism/evolution) is not a *scientific* controversy, it is an ideological/political one. The objections contain almost no science whatsoever. Case in point. The people discussing science don't bring up Gore. It's the people not discussing science that do. I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. Focus on Gore as a founder, pretend his is the most important voice, and pretend we haven't improved our understanding at all since his time. Just like creationists do with Darwin. Biologists don't bring up Darwin when talking about modern evolution, creationists do. Religious or corporate, agendas are still agendas.
iNow Posted June 10, 2015 Posted June 10, 2015 By the way, I just got up so I can't have read all the cited works,(thanks for them, incidentally), but I notice that LM Bouwer's work in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society(2001) states that AGW is not as yet the cause of increased losses from adverse weather events(I paraphrase, of course). In light of this, is Bouwer one of my "ilk"?I don't know. Maybe, but it's irrelevant. He's a risk analyst, someone who measures potential costs and commercial impacts, not a climatologist. Further, that paper was from 15 years ago, has been decimated by criticism, as have his more recent papers published in 2007 and 2011 for failure to properly account for impact on infrastructure, agriculture, and impact from migrations.
Harold Squared Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Thank you for your comments. Right now my opinion of this particular thread is that the topic is too general and that it has become unwieldy and contains too many digressions and too little civility. I am planning a project specifically on Gore and a manifesto of sorts describing in detail my objections to the AGW hypothesis, the former on Amateur Science and the latter in this section. May you all enjoy good health and spirits until tomorrow.
dimreepr Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 I am planning a project specifically on Gore and a manifesto of sorts describing in detail my objections to the AGW hypothesis, the former on Amateur Science and the latter in this section. Please don't.
Strange Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) I am planning a project specifically on Gore and a manifesto of sorts describing in detail my objections to the AGW hypothesis, the former on Amateur Science and the latter in this section. The former sounds like it would be better in Social Science or Media (except there isn't a section for those). So maybe The Lounge or Politics. It certainly isn't anything to do with science. You might want to start with an introduction to who he is and why you think he is so important. (Is? Or was? I assume he is still around?) The latter will need a lot more scientific support than you have ever provided before. Edited June 11, 2015 by Strange
swansont Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 Politics. There really isn't anywhere else it should go. If you want to discuss the science you shouldn't be quoting Gore, you should be referencing science journals.
Harold Squared Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Oh no, it is definitely Amateur Science material. You will understand when the time comes. It is RESEARCH, you see.
Recommended Posts