One million years is a pretty big period in comparison with the glacial/interglacial cycle.sideshow_bob said:
105 vs ultegra vs dura-ace
- Thread starter zaku
- Start date
Another trick the 'climate change' lobby uses is the fallacy of the false zero. By choosing 20 million and not 21 million you make such a mistake above. The atmospheric CO2 is not higher than it has been for the last 21 million years. Global mean ocean temperature is not one degree C away from the hottest it's been in one and a half million years,artemidorus said:
Models can suggest all kinds of things, I've seen a video of a model X-Wing that someone made fly, doesn't say it would be a viable space craft.
The record though, as I've said previously, indicates that climate change, when it happens, is very rapid, of the rate of years.As mentioned earlier, the CO2 and temperatures started to rise before the industrial revolution, in this latest sub-cycle about 200 years before.
As to co-incidences, the most convincing relationship I've seen so far is an inverse proportional relationship of the number of pirates captured on the high seas to CO2 levels. I think anyone would be hard pressed to imply a causative relationship though!
A number of points:threaded said:
Firstly, you'll have to be clearer on this, I don't really understand your argument.
Secondly, these data are not from any "lobby" but from scientists publishing in well-respected, peer-reviewed journals.
We are talking about models produced by respected scientists publishing in good journals. If you don't like models in general, then of course you don't bother listening to the weather forecast and you wouldn't be silly enough to set foot in one of those death-trap commercial jet-planes.threaded said:Models can suggest all kinds of things, I've seen a video of a model X-Wing that someone made fly, doesn't say it would be a viable space craft.
Noone is disputing this point. The levels had to be going one way or another before any putative perturbation.threaded said:
All sorts of epiphenomena are associated with the modern technological era. The ad hoc misinterpretation of data that is not gathered to investigate a pre-defined hypothesis is spurious and is typically used only as a smokescreen by those needing one.threaded said:As to co-incidences, the most convincing relationship I've seen so far is an inverse proportional relationship of the number of pirates captured on the high seas to CO2 levels. I think anyone would be hard pressed to imply a causative relationship though!
My point is that most of these papers on climate change are so full of fallacies as to be quite laughable. I'll let you into an apparently well kept secret: they are not at all well respected by real scientists, but generally they keep quiet for fear of losing their jobs.artemidorus said:
Example would be what they did to Dr. David Bellamy, often seen on TV, highly respected. He spoke out against climate change, once. Don't even see repeats of his shows on TV now. That is what 'climate change' is in reality.
In this era, the relevant journals are more on their guard than usual. They have to be very careful about publishing research with any flaws, or they'll be attacked from many sides. They'll have their reviewers on high alert for any misinterpretations, overgeneralisations, attacks of hysteria, partisanism or other manifestations of bad science. After all, what's in it for the journals or their reviewers to give in to pressure from lobbying groups? Why would they risk their reputations? There's no reward for them for publishing bad science.threaded said:
Your so-called "real scientists" are only real if they are doing their best to refute any bad science that they see by publishing to the contrary.
Oh no, no, Science is now very commercial. Journals will publish just about anything, especially from the pro-climate lobby camp, they're worried about being removed from library lists, just as much as academics worry about losing their jobs. Example: try and get the latest copy of the journal from the 'Institution of Civil Engineers' in your college library, oh BTW they published an article making none PC comments about 'climate change'.artemidorus said:
Nup, that's really boring.kakman said:hey guys, way to hijack a thread
can't we get back to 105 vs Ultegra vs DA and how much difference 200 grams make?
//k
Not so for the respected journals in my field, but I have no personal knowledge of the venality of climate science. Nevertheless, I'd be surprised if things are quite as bad as you suggest.threaded said:
I think we did that, and if you really need to save 200 grams, prunes are your friend.kakman said:hey guys, way to hijack a thread
can't we get back to 105 vs Ultegra vs DA and how much difference 200 grams make?
//k
I'd go so far to suggest that if bicycle shops really did want to sell you stuff to lower overall weight, rather than bling that'll need replacing every season then they'd be selling dried prunes and juice.
YOUR NAME SAYS IT ALL!!!Sillyoldtwit said:This thread is amazing, it has kept me amused for days now. I think everyone has missed the most important weight burden. Yes, that rushed **** when you've left nearly 250 grams up the tube. Before I do any ride I make sure as much as possible that I've completely emptied the sewage tank. Besides carrying less weight, I psychologically feel better (emptier). Have you ever climbed a long hill when you're bursting for a **** and all you can really think about is getting home before you explode.
Apologies for reducing this thread to its lowest level, but just my 2 yens worth.
As someone who has posted on the side of "too small to measure", I will say that what you say is very valid...... even for fat, middle aged recreational riders. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH BUYING TOP OF THE LINE GEAR JUST BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT and can afford it. It is FUN riding the "best" even though it makes no measurable difference in ride or speed.LeDomestique said:
True, I suppose. Likewise there is absolutely nothing wrong with not buying the top of the line equipment and instead buying Ultegra SL, or Chorus, because it is actually far better value, in every respect.Camilo said:
To each their own. But, one of the above axioms is a rather more pragmatic proposition than the other.
