Global Warming

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Apr 21, 11:26 am, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 21, 10:37 am, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 20, 11:14 pm, Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > how does the market decide between
> > > Pareto optimal alternatives?
> > > Please phrase your answer in the form of
> > > a question.
>
> > Why would the market need to decide if there is no net welfare
> > change?  (Which some would say carries the implication that it is okay
> > to make such a change.)
>
> > But perhaps you assume more than you should.
>
> Exactly, though
> 1) you're not Ryan and
> 2) if you were Ryan you were supposed to answer in the form of a
> question, like "what doesn't the market decide?"
>
> So, NotRyan, shall we now let Ryan ponder the meaning of this?

Sorry about your party.

Schwartz wrote a haiku:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/84ecde91aa1a6111?

 

[Donald Munro]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> Schwartz wrote a haiku:
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/84ecde91aa1a6111?

Odd, his bots don't do haiku or even sonnets.

 

[Donald Munro]

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are not
> scientists but money grubbing bastards 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.

> 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."

 

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

> On 21 Apr 2008 05:31:19 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>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

 

[William Asher]

Tom Kunich wrote:

> "Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>> On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> 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.

--
Bill Asher

 

[William Asher]

Jack Hollis wrote:

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

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

 

[William Asher]

Donald Munro wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Really disturbs you when it's pointed out that what we have now are
>> not scientists but money grubbing bastards 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.
>
>> 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

 

[Jack Hollis]

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

>> 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.

 

[Jack Hollis]

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

>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.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 21 Apr 2008 19:53:39 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 21, 4:47 pm, Jack Hollis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21 Apr 2008 19:53:39 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> 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.

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 ****. 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.

 

[Tom Kunich]

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

 

[Tom Kunich]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8f09d8f2-f318-4e9e-a835-9c7198e1945a@s33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> 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.

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
Donald Munro <[email protected]> wrote:

> Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
> >> 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 protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:49 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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 protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<[email protected]>,
Robert Chung <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Apr 20, 9:49 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > 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 protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>, William Asher <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> > "Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news[email protected]...
> >> On 21 Apr 2008 00:29:02 GMT, William Asher <[email protected]> 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?

 

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <[email protected]>,
William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

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

> > 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.

> 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 protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

 

[Robert Chung]

On Apr 21, 6:28 pm, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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?

 

[[email protected]]

On Apr 21, 5:58 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > 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