Ya, about those glaciers melting....
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Ya, about those glaciers melting....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece
[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]
(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)
[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]
(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
A picture is worth a thousand words....Badger wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece
[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]
(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Photos from 100 years ago?EvilYeti wrote:A picture is worth a thousand words....Badger wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece
[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]
(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL
Well, if there were photos from 20 000 years ago, the location of my house would show it to be under a mile of ice. Perhaps global warming started then, and isn't quite done yet.
Any article that states within its body "You don't need science to prove...." tends not to be something that I'd put a lot of stock in. Sorry.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?Badger wrote:
Photos from 100 years ago?
Well, if there were photos from 20 000 years ago, the location of my house would show it to be under a mile of ice. Perhaps global warming started then, and isn't quite done yet.
Any article that states within its body "You don't need science to prove...." tends not to be something that I'd put a lot of stock in. Sorry.
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
How fast did the glaciers retreat?EvilYeti wrote:You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?Badger wrote:
Photos from 100 years ago?
Well, if there were photos from 20 000 years ago, the location of my house would show it to be under a mile of ice. Perhaps global warming started then, and isn't quite done yet.
Any article that states within its body "You don't need science to prove...." tends not to be something that I'd put a lot of stock in. Sorry.
Based on 1000 miles (approx Banff Alberta ...the mountains.... to Brandon Manitoba....where some glaciers were) and 20 000 years, I get a retreat rate of 264 ft/yr. I know that's a VERY rough estimate. Correct it as you will.
What's the present rate of retreat? Say, for the 100 years that you identify.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
How long is a piece of string?Badger wrote:
How fast did the glaciers retreat?
Depends on which time frame you are interested in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_retreat
For which glacial mass? They aren't all the same, you know.Based on 1000 miles (approx Banff Alberta ...the mountains.... to Brandon Manitoba....where some glaciers were) and 20 000 years, I get a retreat rate of 264 ft/yr. I know that's a VERY rough estimate. Correct it as you will.
What's the present rate of retreat? Say, for the 100 years that you identify.
Start reading here and educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850
-
- Posts: 20299
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
- Title: Je suis devenu Français
- Location: USA
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Except when it leaves out the words about the picture.EvilYeti wrote: A picture is worth a thousand words....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL
"For nearly 2 centuries before 1941, Muir Glacier had been retreating; in places, a thickness of more than two-thirds of a mile of ice had been lost. "
"Muir Glacier has undergone very rapid, well-documented retreat since its Little Ice Age maximum position at the mouth of Glacier Bay around 1780."
So before the 1941 photo, it had already retreated like over 15 miles. Showing only the retreat in the two photos from 1941 to 2004, with out mentioning that this was a constant retreat that had been going on, is deception.
Which is why pictures alone don't always tell the whole story.
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Nice.EvilYeti wrote:How long is a piece of string?Badger wrote:
How fast did the glaciers retreat?
Depends on which time frame you are interested in...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier_retreat
For which glacial mass? They aren't all the same, you know.Based on 1000 miles (approx Banff Alberta ...the mountains.... to Brandon Manitoba....where some glaciers were) and 20 000 years, I get a retreat rate of 264 ft/yr. I know that's a VERY rough estimate. Correct it as you will.
What's the present rate of retreat? Say, for the 100 years that you identify.
Start reading here and educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850
A few posts up, you asked "You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?"
So, I'll go with "No". Current rate looks about like what's been going on for the last 20 000 years, based on my back of envelope calculation.
Got anything that you think would convince me otherwise?
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Read the article:Badger wrote:
Nice.
A few posts up, you asked "You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?"
So, I'll go with "No". Current rate looks about like what's been going on for the last 20 000 years, based on my back of envelope calculation.
Got anything that you think would convince me otherwise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
I did.EvilYeti wrote:Read the article:Badger wrote:
Nice.
A few posts up, you asked "You don't think the rate of change may be cause for concern?"
So, I'll go with "No". Current rate looks about like what's been going on for the last 20 000 years, based on my back of envelope calculation.
Got anything that you think would convince me otherwise?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of ... since_1850
If that's what you have that you think would convince me, you didn't manage to convince me. Retreats of 45ft - 500 ft/yr seem reasonable, based on my above mentioned back of the envelope calculations for the last 20 000 years.
I know you think I'm an idiot and such, but you're doing little to explain your position. Your dismissive "you deniers are tiresome" responses just don't help much.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Summarize it in your own words please.Badger wrote:
I did.
Your calculations are off by an order of magnitude in more ways than one. They aren't even of 'back of the envelope' status!If that's what you have that you think would convince me, you didn't manage to convince me. Retreats of 45ft - 500 ft/yr seem reasonable, based on my above mentioned back of the envelope calculations for the last 20 000 years.
I don't think you are an idiot. Just incompetent, ignorant and ill-informed.I know you think I'm an idiot and such, but you're doing little to explain your position. Your dismissive "you deniers are tiresome" responses just don't help much.
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
You apparently have reading and math comprehension issues.EvilYeti wrote:Summarize it in your own words please.Badger wrote:
I did.
Your calculations are off by an order of magnitude in more ways than one. They aren't even of 'back of the envelope' status!If that's what you have that you think would convince me, you didn't manage to convince me. Retreats of 45ft - 500 ft/yr seem reasonable, based on my above mentioned back of the envelope calculations for the last 20 000 years.
I don't think you are an idiot. Just incompetent, ignorant and ill-informed.I know you think I'm an idiot and such, but you're doing little to explain your position. Your dismissive "you deniers are tiresome" responses just don't help much.
In response to "summarize in your own words", you can look at what is in the quote box JUST BELOW THAT STATEMENT.
With regard to orders of magnitude, 1000 miles divided by 20 000 years is 264 ft/yr. so, your statement is wrong.
And you were invited to correct them, but didn't make the effort.
You have shown that you, too, are incompetent, and ill-informed, though not ignorant.
Whatever. Have a nice night.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
I have issue with your numbers, not the division. As well as the assertion that this is strictly a linear phenomenon.Badger wrote:
With regard to orders of magnitude, 1000 miles divided by 20 000 years is 264 ft/yr. so, your statement is wrong.
And you were invited to correct them, but didn't make the effort.
-
- Posts: 17762
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
-
- Posts: 30336
- Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
- Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Well I'll be damned. :?Badger wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece
[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]
(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)
So the glaciers are still disappearing, but not so fast that they will be gone in a quarter century. In geologic time scales however, it's still fast.Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.
The lead role in that process was played by Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Ontario, Canada, who had long been unhappy with the IPCC's finding.
He traced the IPCC claim back to the New Scientist and then contacted Pearce. Pearce then re-interviewed Hasnain, who confirmed that his 1999 comments had been "speculative", and published the update in the New Scientist.
Cogley said: "The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report. The problem is that nobody who studied this material bothered chasing the trail back to the original point when the claim first arose. It is ultimately a trail that leads back to a magazine article and that is not the sort of thing you want to end up in an IPCC report.”
Pearce said the IPCC's reliance on the WWF was "immensely lazy" and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Yet you fail to provide any enlightenment at all.EvilYeti wrote:I have issue with your numbers, not the division. As well as the assertion that this is strictly a linear phenomenon.Badger wrote:
With regard to orders of magnitude, 1000 miles divided by 20 000 years is 264 ft/yr. so, your statement is wrong.
And you were invited to correct them, but didn't make the effort.
I'm frankly disappointed.
One other thing. I admit that I did kind of "lay it out there" to see if you would take the bait, which indeed you did. You characterize me as a "Denier" and "Them" as opposed to yourself which you referred to as "we". I want you to know that I understand that the earth has warmed since the last glaciation, and may indeed still be warming. Therefore, I am not a "global warming denier". I only have issue with the anthropogenic part of it. From what I can glean, the data supporting the A in AGW is less than totally convincing.
I am not one of "Them", whoever you may think "They" are. I am, however, a guy who is interested in this subject, and is looking for information.
Thanks for not very much.
-
- Posts: 20299
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:01 am
- Title: Je suis devenu Français
- Location: USA
-
- Posts: 1830
- Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 4:41 pm
- Location: New York
It certainly won't if the watermelons keep carping that everything is the US and Europe's fault and of course China and India should be exempted from whatever the rest of the world binds itself to.robinson wrote:I just can't see that happening.corplinx wrote:The only way to fix Himalayan glacial retreat is to get China and India to cut emissions drastically
-
- Posts: 23535
- Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
- Title: Incipient toppler
- Location: Swimming in Lake Ed
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
You're an odd sort, Yeti. Even when the IPCC admits that their Himalayan glacial prophesy was based on nothing more than one guys speculation and an article in new scientist, you still cling to the theory that it must be true based on an article in SFGate and, of all things, Wiki!EvilYeti wrote:A picture is worth a thousand words....Badger wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece
[Inigo Montoya] I don't think "peer reviewed" means what you think it means.[/Inigo Montoya]
(ya, I know it wasn't claimed that this was peer reviewed, but with regards to losing data files, the comments in the computer programming, and the Yamal issue, it all seems like a monkey fucking a football rather than good science.)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... ADH401.DTL
Piece of work.
You must be very well vested in AGW.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
You cannot be enlightened. It's impossible. If I had all the resources in the world to enlighten you I would still fail.Badger wrote:
Yet you fail to provide any enlightenment at all.
I'm frankly disappointed.
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-inter ... echniques/One other thing. I admit that I did kind of "lay it out there" to see if you would take the bait, which indeed you did. You characterize me as a "Denier" and "Them" as opposed to yourself which you referred to as "we". I want you to know that I understand that the earth has warmed since the last glaciation, and may indeed still be warming. Therefore, I am not a "global warming denier". I only have issue with the anthropogenic part of it. From what I can glean, the data supporting the A in AGW is less than totally convincing.
Winning by losing. Classy!
If you deny the dominant climate forcing over the last 150 years was anthropogenic then you are a denier. If that's not the case then you are basically arguing against your own position, which strikes me as rather odd.
There is literally more easy to access information on this subject currently than ever before in human history. That you cannot comprehend it is not something I am able to fix. Sorry.I am not one of "Them", whoever you may think "They" are. I am, however, a guy who is interested in this subject, and is looking for information.
Thanks for not very much.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
My point is that glaciers have been in retreat the world over for the last 150 years (ergo they are not at equilibrium). Nothing in the IPCC revision changes that simple fact.Rob Lister wrote:
You're an odd sort, Yeti. Even when the IPCC admits that their Himalayan glacial prophesy was based on nothing more than one guys speculation and an article in new scientist, you still cling to the theory that it must be true based on an article in SFGate and, of all things, Wiki!
Piece of work.
You must be very well vested in AGW.
I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.
However, if you are a big polluter, I can see how denying it would make you the big bucks!
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.EvilYeti wrote:You cannot be enlightened. It's impossible. If I had all the resources in the world to enlighten you I would still fail.Badger wrote:
Yet you fail to provide any enlightenment at all.
I'm frankly disappointed.
I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.
To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.EvilYeti wrote:http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-inter ... echniques/Badger wrote: One other thing. I admit that I did kind of "lay it out there" to see if you would take the bait, which indeed you did. You characterize me as a "Denier" and "Them" as opposed to yourself which you referred to as "we". I want you to know that I understand that the earth has warmed since the last glaciation, and may indeed still be warming. Therefore, I am not a "global warming denier". I only have issue with the anthropogenic part of it. From what I can glean, the data supporting the A in AGW is less than totally convincing.
Winning by losing. Classy!
If you deny the dominant climate forcing over the last 150 years was anthropogenic then you are a denier. If that's not the case then you are basically arguing against your own position, which strikes me as rather odd.
I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.EvilYeti wrote:There is literally more easy to access information on this subject currently than ever before in human history. That you cannot comprehend it is not something I am able to fix. Sorry.Badger wrote: I am not one of "Them", whoever you may think "They" are. I am, however, a guy who is interested in this subject, and is looking for information.
Thanks for not very much.
Once more, thanks for not very much.
-
- Posts: 8094
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
- Title: Thankless Bastard!
- Location: Get off my fucking lawn
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Amazing how his posts look the same as Mambus's posts.Badger wrote: you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.
Hmmmm. Have we ever seen them together????
-
- Posts: 11741
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
- Title: mere ghost of his former self
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:EvilYeti wrote:I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html
Another example: Al Gore also has a financial interest in pushing for carbon trading.The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...
And then there are those who see AGW as a vehicle for increasing government domination over the citizens of the planet.
So there is clear evidence that many people do have a vested interest in AGW, an interest that is independent from the science involved.
-
- Posts: 10271
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
- Location: Hangar 18
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
OMG! Conspeericy!!!1!xouper wrote:Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:EvilYeti wrote:I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html
Another example: Al Gore also has a financial interest in pushing for carbon trading.The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...
And then there are those who see AGW as a vehicle for increasing government domination over the citizens of the planet.
So there is clear evidence that many people do have a vested interest in AGW, an interest that is independent from the science involved.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Uh, how about you have a history of maintaining untenable positions?Badger wrote: Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.
I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.
Then you are simply ignorant of what you are even ignorant of (a common condition). Allow our own Dr. Naomi Oreskes to enlighten you:To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.
Given you are reading denialist blogs filled with nonsense, you are doing nothing more than poisoning your own well.Badger wrote: I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.
Once more, thanks for not very much.
-
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
- Location: Location: Location!
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
...and the article is by Christopher Booker, whom is affiliated with the Heartland Institute. Which gets buckets of cash from the fossil fuel industry.xouper wrote:Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:EvilYeti wrote:I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html
The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... her_Booker
So I don't buy it.
Beyond that Dr Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist (the article even mentions this), the IPCC isn't a scientific organization and none of this changes the science.
Or the simple fact the IPCC's forecasts have all been woefully conservative, which makes it kind of hard to argue that the guy is profiteering.
Al Gore isn't a climate scientist.Another example: Al Gore also has a financial interest in pushing for carbon trading.
I agree! Those are the lefties/commies and EarthFirst enviro-loons. They aren't climate scientsts either.And then there are those who see AGW as a vehicle for increasing government domination over the citizens of the planet.
None of these people are doing climate science research. The only vested interest scientists have is doing good science.So there is clear evidence that many people do have a vested interest in AGW, an interest that is independent from the science involved.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
It's not going to be the end of the world (or humanity), its just going to suck for many of us. But we will adapt, if for no other reason than because we have to.DrMatt wrote:We'll see.
When we do, it'll be too late.
It always is.
I'll even admit that my long-term forecast is for global cooling, as once nano-tech becomes viable carbon is going to become a very valuable commodity. Mining the troposphere for it may prove to be financially viable. The idealist in me thinks we'll have this stuff nailed out well enough in the future to effectively 'tune' the climate to something that is close to optimum for all of us.
-
- Posts: 10271
- Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
- Location: Hangar 18
What's wrong with trees? They seem to be pretty good at getting carbon in bulk form. Sure, it may take a couple million years and a whole lotta pressure...EvilYeti wrote:It's not going to be the end of the world (or humanity), its just going to suck for many of us. But we will adapt, if for no other reason than because we have to.DrMatt wrote:We'll see.
When we do, it'll be too late.
It always is.
I'll even admit that my long-term forecast is for global cooling, as once nano-tech becomes viable carbon is going to become a very valuable commodity. Mining the troposphere for it may prove to be financially viable. The idealist in me thinks we'll have this stuff nailed out well enough in the future to effectively 'tune' the climate to something that is close to optimum for all of us.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Trees aren't a long-term carbon sink other than in very limited cases. New growth sucks up carbon, old growth decomposes and back it goes. Indeed, the trees wold have to be buried in some way that sequestrated their carbon.Mentat wrote:
What's wrong with trees? They seem to be pretty good at getting carbon in bulk form. Sure, it may take a couple million years and a whole lotta pressure...
-
- Posts: 11741
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
- Title: mere ghost of his former self
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Who cares that you don't buy it. It is an example of someone who has financial incentives to promote AGW.EvilYeti wrote:...and the article is by Christopher Booker, whom is affiliated with the Heartland Institute. Which gets buckets of cash from the fossil fuel industry.xouper wrote:Perhaps your memory needs a little jog. This is old news and has been posted before:EvilYeti wrote:I have no vested interest in AGW. Nobody does. I can't imagine how that would even be possible.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227 ... hauri.html
The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... her_Booker
So I don't buy it.
Beyond that Dr Rajendra Pachauri isn't a climate scientist (the article even mentions this), the IPCC isn't a scientific organization and none of this changes the science.
Al Gore isn't a climate scientist.
Those are the lefties/commies and EarthFirst enviro-loons. They aren't climate scientsts either.
I already said it doesn't change the science. My reply to you was not about the science. My reply was about your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave some examples of some who do. And there was no requirement implied by your claim that I limit my examples to climatologists.None of these people are doing climate science research. The only vested interest scientists have is doing good science.
If you now wish to revise your claim to say no scientist has a vested interest in AGW, then again, it is easy to show that scientists sometimes have a vested interest in what they are researching. Can you say "grants"? Climate scientists are no less vulnerable to being invested in getting grants than any other kind of researcher.
Face it Yeti, you erred by claiming no one has a vested interest in AGW. That was an ill-informed thing to say. Maybe you had something else in mind, in which case you might wish to clarify what you intended to say instead of what you actually posted.
-
- Posts: 3610
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:57 pm
- Location: Here, there, and sometimes elsewhere
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
You assume much.EvilYeti wrote:Uh, how about you have a history of maintaining untenable positions?Badger wrote: Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.
I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.
Then you are simply ignorant of what you are even ignorant of (a common condition). Allow our own Dr. Naomi Oreskes to enlighten you:To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.
Given you are reading denialist blogs filled with nonsense, you are doing nothing more than poisoning your own well.Badger wrote: I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.
Once more, thanks for not very much.
-
- Posts: 8094
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:26 am
- Title: Thankless Bastard!
- Location: Get off my fucking lawn
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
God EY is a dick.Badger wrote:You assume much.EvilYeti wrote:Uh, how about you have a history of maintaining untenable positions?Badger wrote: Yes, you probably would. You really don't put your back into it.
I can be, and have been in the past, convinced that my position is untenable, and have changed my opinions. So I once again invite you to hit me with something convincing.
Then you are simply ignorant of what you are even ignorant of (a common condition). Allow our own Dr. Naomi Oreskes to enlighten you:To be accurate, "I don't know". So I'm trying to find out. It doesn't seem to me that the science is settled, any more than it's settled with regard to whether Neanderthals and AMH interbred.
Given you are reading denialist blogs filled with nonsense, you are doing nothing more than poisoning your own well.Badger wrote: I agree with you on this point. And, in my spare time, I'm reading some of it (even more than can be found on Wikipedia, if you can imagine! :o :o :o ). While you can't fix my lack of comprehension, you're not doing much except for being an arrogant ass.
Once more, thanks for not very much.
I often wonder why I have people on ignore. Then someone quotes this kind of shit and I remember why.
-
- Posts: 29811
- Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
- Location: Location: Location!
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Dude you referenced the Watts Up blog. No wonder you are so confused.Badger wrote:
You assume much.
Watch the video. It very clearly explains why there is a scientific consensus on AGW in the first part and in the second, why people like you deny the same.
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
All clouds do, the 'brown' ones are even better at it due to the various aerosols they contain.DrMatt wrote:I thought local brown clouds caused cooling by deflecting the sun away from the ground.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war ... s_and_soot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_brown_cloud#Impacts
Did someone say otherwise?
-
- Posts: 9222
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 5:55 am
- Location: San Diego
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Well, given his promotions/forecasts so far have been woefully conservative this is definitely a candidate for the worst conspiracy ever.xouper wrote: Who cares that you don't buy it. It is an example of someone who has financial incentives to promote AGW.
I don't care about political organizations. And I'm not sure how they stand to 'profit' either because they would still exist if the scientists forecast global cooling. They are irrelevant to the topic.I already said it doesn't change the science. My reply to you was not about the science. My reply was about your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave some examples of some who do. And there was no requirement implied by your claim that I limit my examples to climatologists.
Climate scientists get grants to study the climate regardless of what the short, medium and long term forecasts are. As long as they do good science, they keep getting money, regardless if their models say we are warming or cooling. If you had any experience with grants you would understand this.If you now wish to revise your claim to say no scientist has a vested interest in AGW, then again, it is easy to show that scientists sometimes have a vested interest in what they are researching. Can you say "grants"? Climate scientists are no less vulnerable to being invested in getting grants than any other kind of researcher.
If you bothered looking at the primary sources and citations you would see much of the research of the previous decades wasn't focused on AGW. They were researching something else (paleoclimatology for example) and the AGW signal simply turned up in what they found, which other researchers later cited. This is simply how science works.
In fact, AGW research is poison to many organizations (and I know this from first hand experience) as the fossil fuel companies donate lots of money towards geophysical research. Oil exploration and all that. However, they of course have a vested interest in minimizing any dangers of their products and won't sponsor any research towards that end. Taking a position on global warming this year can mean losing your money from ExxonMobil the next.
I guess if you looked hard enough you could find someone with a vested interest in anything, but the reality is all the scientists get paid the same regardless of what the results are. As long as the research is solid, of course. I work with these people and I can assure you none of them is rich, except maybe for Walter Munk and he's simply old money from what I can tell.Face it Yeti, you erred by claiming no one has a vested interest in AGW. That was an ill-informed thing to say. Maybe you had something else in mind, in which case you might wish to clarify what you intended to say instead of what you actually posted.
You, on the other hand, fail to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry, which is many thousands of times bigger than the earth sciences industry (if you could even call it an industry)have the true vested interest in confusing the lay public re: global warming research.
-
- Posts: 17762
- Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:13 pm
- Location: Friar McWallclocks Bar -- Where time stands still while you lean over!
-
- Posts: 11741
- Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 4:52 am
- Title: mere ghost of his former self
Re: Ya, about those glaciers melting....
Who said anything about a "conspiracy"? Not me. Why the sudden moving of the goalposts?EvilYeti wrote:Well, given his promotions/forecasts so far have been woefully conservative this is definitely a candidate for the worst conspiracy ever.xouper wrote:Who cares that you don't buy it. It is an example of someone who has financial incentives to promote AGW.
You claimed no one had a vested interest in AGW. That is the point I addressed. I made no claims about any conspiracy so your objection is simply stupid, irrelevant, and is not a rebuttal to the fact that I gave good examples of those who have a vested interest in AGW.
You claimed no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave examples that refute your claim.I don't care about political organizations. And I'm not sure how they stand to 'profit' either because they would still exist if the scientists forecast global cooling. They are irrelevant to the topic.I already said it doesn't change the science. My reply to you was not about the science. My reply was about your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW. I gave some examples of some who do. And there was no requirement implied by your claim that I limit my examples to climatologists.
OK, those in the peanut gallery, can you name the primary logical fallacy in Yeti's argument here?Climate scientists get grants to study the climate regardless of what the short, medium and long term forecasts are. As long as they do good science, they keep getting money, regardless if their models say we are warming or cooling. If you had any experience with grants you would understand this.If you now wish to revise your claim to say no scientist has a vested interest in AGW, then again, it is easy to show that scientists sometimes have a vested interest in what they are researching. Can you say "grants"? Climate scientists are no less vulnerable to being invested in getting grants than any other kind of researcher.
If you bothered looking at the primary sources and citations you would see much of the research of the previous decades wasn't focused on AGW. They were researching something else (paleoclimatology for example) and the AGW signal simply turned up in what they found, which other researchers later cited. This is simply how science works.
In fact, AGW research is poison to many organizations (and I know this from first hand experience) as the fossil fuel companies donate lots of money towards geophysical research. Oil exploration and all that. However, they of course have a vested interest in minimizing any dangers of their products and won't sponsor any research towards that end. Taking a position on global warming this year can mean losing your money from ExxonMobil the next.
Hint: Yeti claims no one has a vested interest in AGW and then argues that there exist scientists who do not have that vested interest.
Question: How does that prove Yeti's claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW? Answer: It doesn't. It is a flawed argument.
So, are you conceding that you misspoke and that there are some people who have a vested interest in AGW?I guess if you looked hard enough you could find someone with a vested interest in anything, but the reality is all the scientists get paid the same regardless of what the results are. As long as the research is solid, of course. I work with these people and I can assure you none of them is rich, except maybe for Walter Munk and he's simply old money from what I can tell.Face it Yeti, you erred by claiming no one has a vested interest in AGW. That was an ill-informed thing to say. Maybe you had something else in mind, in which case you might wish to clarify what you intended to say instead of what you actually posted.
Just because I have not addressed that point, that has no bearing on my argument against your claim that no one has a vested interest in AGW.You, on the other hand, fail to acknowledge that the fossil fuel industry, which is many thousands of times bigger than the earth sciences industry (if you could even call it an industry)have the true vested interest in confusing the lay public re: global warming research.
If it's any consolation to you, I agree there is a vested interest against AGW by the oil companies. I never said otherwise, so your objection is rather silly and appears to be a lame attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that your original claim has been shown false.