Then what the hell am I looking at? o_0
_________________
"The heresy of the Information Age is not even that reason will triumph, but that reason has triumphed."

Bongo,

Although it seems strange to me considering how much stuff I've posted, most of it not drivel I hope, you seem to have placed me in a category with Punk about statements that I have said.

Although, I never said most of the things you mentioned.

I've always asked the question not given the answer.


I've never said 100% we are the only cause of climate change. Absolutely there are climatic changes for which we have no good cause or understanding.

I've also never mentioned killing this rock was something we could do.

Seriously it's like you haven't ever read what i've had to say? How strange?

However, my argument has been that on the balance of things that are likely or when so much evidence seems to be pointing in a specific direction isn't it arrogant/ignorant to not consider that. And I've pointed to different articles along the way that indicates odd climate related issues. Granted my sample size is only 30 years or so but from my own empirical record it feels like odd things are a foot.

It also makes sense that if we are doing a lot of activities that increase the amount of X Y and Z. And we can see that historically there have been much lower levels of X Y and Z then it is probable that we are contributing to said levels and that that may have an impact.

Can we fix it? Do we want to?

Judging from our politicians it seems like we're not that interested in trying. To me it seems short sighted, because while you've mentioned that there are billions of dollars being made from climate fear, haven't there been trillions of dollars made from fossil fuels that are finite and by definition are running out?

Doesn't that mean then that new industries that create energy from renewable resources in more efficient ways are an industrial innovation. The boon in economies where manufacturing have significantly declined (USA/Aus/UK/EU)that this new sort of innovation and industry could provide is huge.

Although having said that the number #1 producer of solar panels in the world = China.

In fact China are one of the largest users of renewable electricity out there and have a huge investment in it. Unfortunately they're also the number one user of fossil fuels and have huge investment in that too. Ahh China such a contradiction.

The desertification of Africa is the prime contributor and instigator of the Darfur situation in the Sudan. Industrialisation is what dragged us out of the 18th C and into the 19th C and beyond, now the mechanism for that was fuel and fossil fuels in particular allowing for all sorts of strange and hitherto unknown things but it was not the burning of fuels itself, that was just the mechanism. There can still be industrialisation via different fuels, although not as cheap. Frankly Africa has greater problems with it's governance and education and aid.

It's funny that you ask what believing in man made climate change will do to those people out there who are currently on the precipice of being fucked. But how is doing nothing helping to prevent them tipping over. Do carbon credits help displaced people get their homes back no matter if they are living on the edge of the desert or the shoreline of a bay. Does a prius or electric car or a bicycle help these people. Well no not really, because none of these individual things will do anything. But does that mean doing nothing is the better solution?

My suggestion is that it is better to start trying something and then fine tune than to stand about not trying anything at all.

Unfortunately when it comes to any high level organisation where influence and power are at stake, political agendas will always come into it, science is no different.

Um. A graph telling you that it's hotter than normal, when there has been less solar energy irradiating the earth lately?

Probably the worst part about that graph is grokking the fact that predictions for this century range for 1C to 4C hotter than the mean. And yet 2005 and 2009 are the hottest years we've ever experienced.
_________________
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

ok, I'm confused. I must be missing something. Perhaps it's because I am relying on dimly remembered concepts of stats and calculus. I don't even see a normal temp indicated. It just seems to be a rate of change graph in regards to temp, that goes from a negative value (cooling) to a positive value (warming).

Also, comparing a total value (SI) to a rate of change value (TC) feels slightly disingenuous, but I cannot explain why. I really have no grounding in this, and am probably overlooking something.

Perhaps you are presenting graphs that go above the heads of the laity?
_________________
"The heresy of the Information Age is not even that reason will triumph, but that reason has triumphed."

0 is the global mean. What you're reading on the red scale is global average temperature difference for that year against the global mean for all recorded data. There's no rates of change indicated on the graph directly, pulling the differential would show that.

You're not looking at the difference from year to year, you're looking at the absolute variation around global mean. eg: if scale reads 0.5, and the data shows the global mean to be 14C, then the absolute global average temperature for that year is 14.5C. -0.5 == 13.5C.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

I kinda see where the confusion lies. You'd prefer the actual temperature to be present on the axis, but the graph is designed to show the trend across all data not be a lookup table for year versus temperature.
_________________
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Messing around with that url yields this pretty graph:

Comparison of 2010 Temperature to the Two Other Years with the Warmest Annual Means:


Turns out I was wrong about 2005 / 2009... NASA say that this year will be the hottest year on record
_________________
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

oh. as you were.
_________________
"The heresy of the Information Age is not even that reason will triumph, but that reason has triumphed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land
_________________
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

the more you know!

Hi Syger,

God did it.

Thanks for your interest.
_________________
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Alright mate, sorry for not reading all your posts super carefully.

You just seemed to be interested enough to share it, that's all. And those charts interested me, so, from what i'd actually read, i thought i'd ask some questions. Just didn't expect to be fobbed off quite so easily, and my reaction was a little shocked - but i guess that's just a reflection of your derision and disgust for me, is it? Would have been good if you'd just seen past it for just a second...

As for removing part of my sig? Aren't i entitled to do what i want with it, if i just didn't want it there anyhow? FYI, part of the reasoni i left it was because the creation.com llink is better, more comprehensive, easily to navigate, etc, etc, etc. I added my economics link incase someone actually wanted to look, that's all. I'm not pushing an agenda - they're just sigs.

As for the science stuff....see it how you want....

Do you actually practice empirical science on a regular basis? orI'm not saying you do or don't but you seem to speak about it like you do or something, or at least think "Scientistically" (so to speak) on a regular basis? it does seems that " Scientism " (or 1 , or 2 ) is either your worldview, or at least part of it? no?

You say that things have been explained to me time and again, as react as if i do not agree, then i must not understand what is being said. In truth, i often understand things better than their own adherents do because my preferred angle is that of "the big picture"; but what is it about data and the presentation of a logically valid interpretation that you thinks should constitute truth, and one's humble acceptance?

Do you confuse logical logical validity and logical soundness , as if to think that if something makes really good sense - even REALLY good sense - that it necessarily constitutes truth? Do you not understand how an elegant fit can be made of data, and still be inferior to another model, which fits that data just as well?

The truth is, i DO think you have some grasp of these things. But what baffles me is that, as intelligent and informed as you seem to be, that the understanding does not extend further into the way you speak to people, and the way you just don't seem to grasp how a different point of view might actually be more true than your own. You resort to derision rather quickly...

Is it just possible that i sincerely, from a empirical and rational point of view, might believe that another model constitutes a superior balance of external "fit" and internal logical structure?

Is it also possible that you deride me, not so much because you comprehend what i'm saying and can refute it, but more because you actually don't understand what i'm saying, because are so caught up in the details and so unaware of your fundamental presuppositions, that you are unable to see past them? Why not say that you don't get where i'm coming from, because it is strange to you, rather than hurl abuse? Don't you see that it actually doesn't make you look good??

It is also possible that you do not appreciate the core importance of Choice in these (and any) matters - that Choice renders one blind according to the specifics of one's choices?

The truth is, i can see things from your (atheistic, scientistic, secular humanistic?) point of view, and could probably easily match you in a bout of "atheist vs atheist" roleplay; but why is it that you struggle so greatly to adequately grasp my point of view? If not, then why can't you seen past the framework and details of your own position?

Why don't you appreciate that the significance of data is not self-evident, and that it must always be interpreted; and that interpretations are always reducible to Choices, which are best understood as being meta-physical in nature (ie. relative to a purely material point of view).

This sort of perspective SHOULD bring some intellectual humility, or at least tentativeness; in that respect, you generally fail when you post here in response to people who have - or even MIGHT have! - a different point of view to you....it demonstrates that you do not grasp what i am talking about, and you should really be a little more upfront about that before you pour derision on others.

Human reasoning is not that you (and me, at times!) think it is all that it is jacked up to be. That SHOULD bring humility, but it rarely does in people (yes, i'm guilty, too...)

...And all that from me who actually thinks that man may indeed be responsible for some global warming....but i got a whole lot more general and personal, didn't I?

Hope this doesn't all cause TOO MUCH more offence; i'm not trying to offend, but i am trying to push back firmly when pushed....

And, yes, I take responsibility for my rant..................
_________________
www.creation.com
Loving God with all you mind: Logic and Creation
http://anglesoneconomics.wordpress.com/

Look Syger, you sound like a reasonably intelligent guy who's trying to understand **** the best he can, given certain limiting factors. So I'll be nice.

You were probably raised in a religious family, right? Or perhaps you had a traumatic experience during your formative years and found comfort in the authority or collegiality of the church. Or perhaps you're just epileptic. I don't know, the point is your attempts at evaluating disciplines that you aren't emotionally reliant upon appear to be pretty good. Well done.

But what is with the blindness to the fallacies of your religion? Why don't you apply the same supposedly rigorous assessment standards of proof to your own philosophy's claims?

You can assume whatever you like about my 'scientism', my 'grasp of these things', my presumptions about whether or not I 'get where you're coming from'... that's fine, I truly don't care. Why? To put it in a nutshell: I'm the guy who's right. I could go on and on about the details, in fact I have done so many times and asked for someone to prove me wrong... but this time I'm not going to. It's simply the truth. In this instance, I am the guy who's right. Have been for a long, long time. Don't like it? That's not the point. It's still true. Always has been. Until Buddha himself steps down off his giant space-hovercraft and tells me otherwise, it always will be. So go on, prove me (and by me, I mean the only known mechanism by which humanity as a whole can accurately, objectively prove any given proposition: science) wrong. Being open-minded and intellectually flexible enough to accept incontrovertible evidence, I actually really WANT you to prove me wrong. As a side effect, I could then be happy to be with religious chicks again. And I do like them, something about unspoilt naivety and innocence that pushes all my buttons.

Also, what's with the pride about your ability to 'easily match' my atheisificityness? Dude, that's not kosher Christianity...
_________________
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Syger you must have missed the bit where he said he hates all christians cos he lucked out with this one chick.

http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/global-warming-the-debate/

Since I can smell your apathy, I'll shut up now.
_________________
Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

punk, let's say that I accept that climate change is man-made. Then what?
_________________
"The heresy of the Information Age is not even that reason will triumph, but that reason has triumphed."