Global Warming

Tom Kunich said:

Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are not
scientists but money grubbing [censored] who will say anything in order to
gain another grant?

And the so called sceptics getting and conservative "stink tanks" getting
money from Exxon are as pure as a driven ice age glacier.

Quoted message said:

Scientists in the 70's were much too professional to claim that 30 years
of accurate temperature recording would give you a clue to ice ages or
global warming.

Make up your mini-core CPU. You just wrote:
"Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you and
the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right - it was
ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious scientists."

Jack Hollis said:

William Asher said:

So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
because there weren't any such papers.

Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.

That was Howard. I linked to the realclimate.org article that you didn't
read.

--
Bill Asher

Tom Kunich said:

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

William Asher said:

What I love about you skeptics is that absolutely no amount of
objective evidence, no appeal to logic, no presentation of basic
facts, will budge you one inch from your position.

There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

Yet people where who have absolutely NOTHING to do with such things
are more than happy to make these claims despite things like the UN
"committee" did - the MANAGEMENT changed the actual papers and wrote a
summary making all sorts of false claims. They also claimed a lot of
scientists "agreed" with them who later had to post their own papers
saying that they greatly disagreed with these project managers.

Not that it makes the slightest difference to the US haters here.

Tom, to say I have nothing to do with the IPCC is unfair. I once nailed a
scientist who was a member of the IPCC TAR. What a night.

--
Bill Asher

Jack Hollis said:

William Asher said:

What I love about you skeptics is that absolutely no amount of objective
evidence, no appeal to logic, no presentation of basic facts, will budge
you one inch from your position.

There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

If I could publish this somewhere as a shining example of the skeptic
mindset, and their complete lack of understanding how science works,
specifically that proof of a theory is impossible, and instead
what is done is to objectively assess data in terms of the predictions from
theories and models, I would. It's simply the quintessential post from a
skeptic.

Thank you.

--
Bill Asher

Donald Munro said:

Tom Kunich said:

Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are
not scientists but money grubbing [censored] who will say anything in
order to gain another grant?

And the so called sceptics getting and conservative "stink tanks"
getting money from Exxon are as pure as a driven ice age glacier.

Quoted message said:

Scientists in the 70's were much too professional to claim that 30
years of accurate temperature recording would give you a clue to ice
ages or global warming.

Make up your mini-core CPU. You just wrote:
"Sorry Charley - it happened and most people were aware of it. But you
and the others can pretend that it never happened. Oh, that's right -
it was ONLY in the popular press. Of course they quoted serious
scientists."

I think we can just condense the discussion on climate to people saying:

None, nada zip.

to each other. This is going to save me a lot of time.

--
Bill Asher

William Asher said:

Quoted message said:

Bill, you linked to a paper that said there were seven scientific
articles published that claimed we were heading for an ice age.

And you remember those seven papers and not the 44 others stating that
warming would occur?

Did you read any of the 44 papers. How many of them specifically said
that global warming was due to human activity? More likely they said
that the forty year cooling trend seen from the 1940s to the 1970s was
not an indication that the warming trend that has lasted 10,000 years
was over.

In any case, you asked for one peer reviewed scientific paper and you
yourself have provided evidence of at least seven.

All this point there are two things that haven't changed. First, the
media always writes about the most sensational material. Second, in
the 1970s, and today, there was/is no scientific consensus on what
causes climate change.

Science isn't about saying that because 44 papers say one thing and 7
say another, then the 44 papers are correct. Science is full of
instances when the prevailing opinion was wrong. Fact is that science
is incapable of determining exactly what effect humans are having on
the climate.

I'm not saying that humans are having no effect on the earth's
temperature. I'm just saying that science is unable to determine what
that effect is.

So when it comes to human and global warming, I'm an agnostic. It's
the only sensible way to look at it.

William Asher said:

But my point is that your recollection of history is a bit faulty, and
seems to be easily swayed by what you want to be true.

Complete rubbish. My recollection of history is just fine. It's the
current global orthodoxy that is trying to rewrite history for their
own purposes.

William Asher said:

Quoted message said:

There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

If I could publish this somewhere as a shining example of the skeptic
mindset, and their complete lack of understanding how science works,
specifically that proof of a theory is impossible, and instead
what is done is to objectively assess data in terms of the predictions from
theories and models, I would. It's simply the quintessential post from a
skeptic.

I know enough about science to know that it's impossible to prove that
humans are having any significant effect on global temperature.

Jack Hollis said:

William Asher said:

Quoted message said:

There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

Quoted message said:

If I could publish this somewhere as a shining example of the skeptic
mindset, and their complete lack of understanding how science works,
specifically that proof of a theory is impossible, and instead
what is done is to objectively assess data in terms of the predictions from
theories and models, I would. It's simply the quintessential post from a
skeptic.

I know enough about science to know that it's impossible to prove that
humans are having any significant effect on global temperature.

That was Asher's point. It's generally impossible to
prove a scientific theory correct. In Karl Popper's view,
all you can do is falsify predictions. I don't think Popper's
entire picture is quite right (I prefer Kuhn) but it's a start.

If all you are saying is that it is and always will be
impossible to establish that humans are having any
effect on temperature, no matter what evidence we have
now or collect in the future, then you aren't a skeptic,
you're a denialist. This is sort of like Kunich's position,
or rather Kunich's positions, since he has several of them.
If that's not your position, then you should be able to
outline what evidence would convince you.

Ben

P.S. The existence of 7 papers on cooling in the literature
in the 70s proves little. After all, some fraction of papers
are speculative, mediocre, or [censored]. I'm sure I could find
more than 7 papers every year in the astronomy literature that
are flat-out wrong, if I looked enough, and a larger number that
will turn out to be wrong or off in their predictions, but were
intended to be speculative. That's OK. Some speculation
is how creative new ideas are generated, and some wrong stuff
gets into the literature, but 20 years later it's easy to figure
out which was which.

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So when it comes to human and global warming, I'm an agnostic. It's
the only sensible way to look at it.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev_png

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If all you are saying is that it is and always will be
impossible to establish that humans are having any
effect on temperature, no matter what evidence we have
now or collect in the future, then you aren't a skeptic,
you're a denialist. This is sort of like Kunich's position,
or rather Kunich's positions, since he has several of them.

You're a real comedian aren't you? I'm still waiting for you to explain how
CO2 is estimated to be less than 5% of the greenhouse effect and human
additions to CO2 are less than 5% of the CO2 and you telling us that it is
human contributions that are causing "global warming" at a time when we are
reaching the natural end of a warm period when ice ages tend to come on and
at those points weather becomes more variable.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Donald Munro said:

Fabrizio Mazzoleni said:

Quoted message said:

You want a doomsday scenario

And here it is:
http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/articlecnet.aspx?cp-documentid=6815394

LIVEDRUNK will need to change its wicked ways.

I am . . . newly conflicted.

I guess I had best make myself acquainted with the virtues of fortified
wines. Either that, or start investing in Norwegian breweries.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order,
but here's my best shot.

Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
a question.

What makes you believe Bangladesh's economy is Pareto optimal?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order,
but here's my best shot.

Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
a question.

Doesn't state control of a key industry in a country with terrible
political stability suggest monstrous agency issues?

As in, even bigger than those in the US managed-fund industry?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

In article <[email hidden]>, William Asher <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich said:

"Jack Hollis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <[email hidden]> wrote:

>What I love about you skeptics is that absolutely no amount of
>objective evidence, no appeal to logic, no presentation of basic
>facts, will budge you one inch from your position.

There is absolutely no scientific proof that humans are cause any
change in global temperature. None, nada zip.

Yet people where who have absolutely NOTHING to do with such things
are more than happy to make these claims despite things like the UN
"committee" did - the MANAGEMENT changed the actual papers and wrote a
summary making all sorts of false claims. They also claimed a lot of
scientists "agreed" with them who later had to post their own papers
saying that they greatly disagreed with these project managers.

Not that it makes the slightest difference to the US haters here.

Tom, to say I have nothing to do with the IPCC is unfair. I once nailed a
scientist who was a member of the IPCC TAR. What a night.

RBR protocol says that should be "tapped" rather than "nailed." Unless you really
did nail this person.

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

William Asher said:

Jack Hollis said:

On 21 Apr 2008 19:42:59 GMT, William Asher <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All this point there are two things that haven't changed. First, the
media always writes about the most sensational material. Second, in
the 1970s, and today, there was/is no scientific consensus on what
causes climate change.

Quoted message said:

Jack, you said you personally remembered when scientists claimed an ice age
was coming and from that recollection, you assumed that climate scientists
still must be wrong. I could go back and look at the exact phrase, but it
was something like that. My point is that you don't and didn't have any
personal recollection of what climate scientists said in the 70's any more
than you know what they are saying today.

This whole argument is making me glad that I have the excellent defense
of not having learned to read until 1978.

ObBike: I'm training again! Only a little. And my knees hurt. Which
sucks.

But I'm training!

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
a question.

What makes you believe Bangladesh's economy is Pareto optimal?

NotRyan already gave the answer, though not in the form of a question.
Why does it apply to the argument you've been trying to make but
screwing up?

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

This is sort of like Kunich's position,
or rather Kunich's positions, since he has several of them.

You're a real comedian aren't you? I'm still waiting for you to explain how
CO2 is estimated to be less than 5% of the greenhouse effect and human
additions to CO2 are less than 5% of the CO2 and you telling us that it is
human contributions that are causing "global warming" at a time when we are
reaching the natural end of a warm period when ice ages tend to come on and
at those points weather becomes more variable.

While you're waiting, you might read

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Happy Earth Day, Tom.

Ben

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Robert Chung said:

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
a question.

What makes you believe Bangladesh's economy is Pareto optimal?

NotRyan already gave the answer, though not in the form of a question.
Why does it apply to the argument you've been trying to make but
screwing up?

Well, I'm humble enough to admit to befuddlement and, frankly, finding
the prospect of overcoming my own ignorance less attractive than going
out and seeing if the current project bike's stem is unstuck today.

But I think, given the time allotted, that you're asserting that the
Bangladeshi Pareto equilibrium is just one with a tremendously disparate
distribution of available resources.

My gut (perhaps misleading me as badly as when it clamors for peanut
butter and chocolate chip microwaved sandwiches) says that the too much
being assumed is that Bangladesh didn't have a choice. My gut (which
thinks I should drink more beer and not worry so much about training or
fitting my clothes) says that Bangladesh's economic growth was
historically impeded by some astoundingly bad choices which, in essence,
spent what little free capital they had in concentrating the maximum
amount of resources on a shrinking industry in a predictably inefficient
fashion.

That can work if you're Canada propping up Bombardier, if only in the
sense that the country doesn't go into the crapper (though it re-raises
the question: what if we didn't have a semi-competitive Bombardier
sucking up a large amount of cash, and instead spent that cash on
something useful, like more beer?).

I'm probably still failing to understand the question, but I stubbornly
continue to believe that a hundred years is a long time, long enough for
Bangladesh to end up with a much better standard of living, barring any
but the least screwed-up fiscal and political (ie, don't declare war on
India) policies.

At which point, they'll be able to afford Executive-Style luxury stilts
for their waterfront homes, and Gregg Easterbrook III and John Stossel
ver 4.2b will be able to write grumpy (and correct) screeds about the
massive subsidy that Bangladeshi's federal flood insurance provides to
Bangladesh's prosperous waterfront homeowners, and the Dutch consultants
will be hanging around Bangladesh showing them how to build dikes. Well,
hopefully it's Dutch consultants, and not Gulf Coast consultants.

* * *

I like changing the subject! I think even the basic Global Warming issue
is going to end up being moot, because I suspect its primary effect will
be to encourage people to either drive less or to drive cleaner.

If I were to list one incomprehensible behavior in modern society, it
would be commuting by car in an urban rush hour. Maybe I value my time
too highly.

--
Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau said:

But I think, given the time allotted, that you're asserting that [mumbo jumbo]

Nope.

Quoted message said:

I'm probably still failing to understand the question

Yup.

As I've said, by all evidence this isn't the place for correcting
misconceptions (this thread in particular but rbr in general) but the
5 second version is that you shouldn't use post hoc GDP, either level
or growth, to rationalize any particular observed difference in
allocation as if that allocation revealed market failure. That's cuz
observed GDP is conditional on initial conditions. A consequence is
that generalized global economic growth won't necessarily be allocated
in a way that will solve Bangladesh's (or any other country's)
localized problems since the market doesn't choose from among net
welfare equivalent alternatives.