Eaarth

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

It would show candor that is completely lacking if Rupert called his material "Fox Op-Ed" or "This Is What Rupert Thinks" instead of Fox "News"... AND if the viewers recognized it as such. It's way too hard to locate objective reporting.

You could say that about anything on television. They're called "programs" or "shows" for a reason.

However, that alone is not a reason to completely discount a fact or interpretation. You cannot completely disregard what is presented on a show simply because you happen to dislike the political leaning of the producers or owners of that show. If I watch television at all (which is pretty rare to begin with), I prefer to watch Fox News, but I will watch CNN if I think that Fox News is being too one-sided about something. Same goes for my news surfing that I like to do. I severely doubt that the Fox haters here practice the same balancing act with CNN or MSNBC.

As for this increasingly tedious AGW argument, Neil and I can produce any manner of YouTube video showing either side concerning AGW. He can drag any other scientific find into this discussion, and I'll show that it took the ability to more accurately perform measurements that proved said scientific find. For instance, in the case of plate tectonics, it took the ability to be able to measure movement of centimeters per year before that theory could be proven. But this is getting tedious.

All I can say here is that you can't use pleas to authority to push a scientific theory. You can't use the "qualification card," either, as the vast majority of scientific discoveries were made by what Neil would consider to be "unqualified" people. You can't use emotional appeals to push a scientific discovery. You can't simply wave away skeptics as "deniers" or "stupid" or "ignorant," either. All of these tactics are more in line with keeping the faith of a religion, or pushing one side of a political discussion, and are not valid scientific arguments.

You have to be able to argue a scientific theory on its merits, and show the inapplicability of alternate explanations and conflicting data which would otherwise disprove said theory. Otherwise, we'd have long ago rejected the Solar model, manned heavier than air craft, spaceflight, electricity, and even Einstein's Special and General Theories of Relativity.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by t vago

You could say that about anything on television.

I just did.

They're called "programs" or "shows" for a reason.

They call themselves "news". Even worse, people believe them.

However, that alone is not a reason to completely discount a fact or interpretation. You cannot completely disregard what is presented on a show simply because you happen to dislike the political leaning of the producers or owners of that show.

Uh huh. Isn't that what the prominent righties here are doing?

I don't watch at all anymore so I don't know what the talking heads have to say about GW. However, I have seen enough "news" over the years to know that much of their garbage CAN be disregarded. Just wait until you see coverage of an event you have personal knowledge of, and how badly it is mangled on the air.

/thread hijack

[NeilBlanchard]

Yet another factor for the scientists to take into account:

Earth is getting dustier, model suggests

Oh no! They got to Issac Asimov, too!

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Oh no! They got to Issac Asimov, too!

I can't see the video so I wonder if he still has those killer mutton-chops ?

In other news the Australian Floods are now caused by global warming...

...as was the droughts that took place in the same area in the 2007 IPCC Reports.

Having it both ways ? Hmmm.

[sid]

Having it both ways ? Hmmm.

Yes, possibly.

I'm an electronics engineer whose specialty is control systems. An underdamped control loop that is on the verge of going totally out of control often starts exhibiting wild oscillations that get more and more extreme before the loop finally goes completely out of control. With some loops, the system will always go hard over in one particular direction when they finally lose it. But other loops could end up in either extreme.

The earth's climate is a control loop. The repetitive cycle of ice age/warm spell looks curiously to me like an underdamped control loop with a relatively long (compared to our lifespans) time constant. We could be altering the conditions enough with our behavior to dramatically reduce this time constant or to bias this loop hard in one particular direction. My experience with borderline stable loops that are already ringing is that it often takes surprisingly little to push them completely unstable.

In other words, I would not be surprised if the climate went permanently (relative to our lifespans) extremely hot OR extremely cold in a matter of decades and that we shouldn't be tempting fate with a system we little understand and may already have been borderline stable before we started mucking with it.

[mnmarcus]

t vago said

However, that alone is not a reason to completely discount a fact or interpretation. You cannot completely disregard what is presented on a show simply because you happen to dislike the political leaning of the producers or owners of that show... ...I severely doubt that the Fox haters here practice the same balancing act with CNN or MSNBC.

At first reading I was very offended by this comment as I can assure you there are at least two in this discussion who dislike foxes "slant" but do not take everything anyone else says without at least a grain of salt.

But I guess I might say the same thing, the selfRIGHTeous believe anything they hear from head-Rush or FoxkindaNews. So, two sides of the same coin. Sorry for the name calling and snideness, I'd just like to point out that that both sides can be rude but it really doesn't help any.

So, t vago, Arragonis, Thymeclock, What do you say we do about global warming? Nothing, it's all made up? Buy as much stuff as you want and drive around in SUV throwing fast food wrappers out the sun roof? I'm kidding but besides "global climate change is leftist propaganda" what point do you have to make? I suppose that may be all you want to say, which is your right (no pun intended), but what would you say to the "undecided"? "Not to blindly follow the leftist media", but then what? I don't consider the greater media as leftist, maybe sensationalist, but also I don't follow ANYTHING I see on TV/internet/radio blindly. Now what?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by sid

Yes, possibly....

...In other words, I would not be surprised if the climate went permanently (relative to our lifespans) extremely hot OR extremely cold in a matter of decades and that we shouldn't be tempting fate with a system we little understand and may already have been borderline stable before we started mucking with it.

But it wasn't stable before we started mucking about with it. And we don't even know if we are mucking about with it.

Originally Posted by mnmarcus

t vago said


At first reading I was very offended by this comment as I can assure you there are at least two in this discussion who dislike foxes "slant" but do not take everything anyone else says without at least a grain of salt.

But I guess I might say the same thing, the selfRIGHTeous believe anything they hear from head-Rush or FoxkindaNews. So, two sides of the same coin. Sorry for the name calling and snideness, I'd just like to point out that that both sides can be rude but it really doesn't help any.

I agree, see my previous 'resignations' from this thread, I have tried to be gracious with my comments about those I disagree with in them. If I have tapped something offensive then I apologise, it was certainly not deliberate. I have even tried to step in when I think others have gone a little far and got personal.

Originally Posted by mnmarcus

So, t vago, Arragonis, Thymeclock, What do you say we do about global warming? Nothing, it's all made up? Buy as much stuff as you want and drive around in SUV throwing fast food wrappers out the sun roof? I'm kidding but besides "global climate change is leftist propaganda" what point do you have to make? I suppose that may be all you want to say, which is your right (no pun intended), but what would you say to the "undecided"? "Not to blindly follow the leftist media", but then what? I don't consider the greater media as leftist, maybe sensationalist, but also I don't follow ANYTHING I see on TV/internet/radio blindly. Now what?

Well, as for the leftist media thing, I can't tap for others but I'm leftist myself. I've often wondered about the right vs left or Republicans don't do science thing. I would probably be too far to the left in US terms to even vote for Obama.

As for the argument that I'm in favour of no action, no I'm not. What I'm concerned about is that we are focussing our resources on the wrong thing, led by grant funded science. When the tool you have is a hammer (reducing CO2 emissions only) then every problem starts to look like a nail.

At the same time we may be missing the bigger picture - the sun may be having quite an effect on climate, it has more impact than we do. We also don't know nearly enough about the history of climate to use that as a guide. History suggests CO2 is not a driver, so why do we think it is ?

And when someone in the Gaurdian today thinks that comparing a power company with the Nazis is acceptible I wonder whether any sense in my fellow leftist travellers has been lost altogether.

At the same time we deny those in the world far less able than we are the basics they need to generate wealth and development - the means to help themselves be more resilient against disasters that unfortunately befall them. We restrict them to wind and solar power which is a joke on a national scale. People die or get sick. We blame AGW.

As for SUV driving litterbugs, I can think of quite a few penalties they should face...

[t vago]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

But it wasn't stable before we started mucking about with it. And we don't even know if we are mucking about with it.

Indeed. We can't even get the climate computer models right, so how can we presume to know what is happening with actual carbon dioxide?

Originally Posted by mnmarcus

(a rather, um, interesting emotional plea in support of AGW)

Why do you AGW zealots always think I am somehow in favor of polluting the planet? It's about as insulting as y'all stating that I don't believe in science.

One more thing. Don't like being characterized as Fox hating one-sided nutcases? Don't exclusively bash Fox News! Don't whine only about Fox News! I know, it's such a wacky proposition that might even work!

[NeilBlanchard]

You know how self-delusional and ditsy military and intelligence people are, right?

[Arragonis]

BTW Fox News doesn't enter my life in any form except via YouTube clips as it isn't shown here. Strangely the European Murdoch news outfit, Sky, is actually pretty good - if a little loud and shouty like CNN on too much coffee...

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You know how self-delusional and ditsy military and intelligence people are, right?

They are expressing what they believe will be the outcome of what they believe will be happening in the future. There are lots of 'maybe' and 'could' and 'potentially' in their original testimony. I have to say though well done to the military and intelligence people for at least considering the consequences. Thats their job after all.

But if you want self-delusional, how about this ?

Sophie Scholl, a Munich University student, was executed for revealing the truth about the activities of the Nazi authorities; today 20 brave Ratcliffe whistleblowers have been sentenced at Nottingham crown court for plotting to draw attention to the truth of the activities of another German entity. This time, replace the tyranny of the Nazis with the tyranny of the energy giant E.ON.

Hang on, EON is a power company. They are like Nazis ? Eh ?

Scholl and 20 others stood up and took direct non-violent action. Their crime was the dissemination of leaflets highlighting and decrying the tyranny of the Nazi dictatorship. It was a decision to undertake something unlawful – an act that they believed was a necessity – to halt a greater but unnamed crime, a crime that cost many lives. That crime did not, at the time, have a name. But it soon did: genocide.

The Ratcliffe 20 did the same in April 2009. They too were prepared to stand up and take action. Their crime was planning to shut down Ratcliffe-on-Soar, a coal-powered station that is one of Britain's largest greenhouse gas emitters. The state was failing to prevent a greater injury from taking place; the loss of life. This time it is not only human life, but all life.

Basically what they tried to do was close down a coal fired power station. They hadn't bother to warn anyone that might be affected, for example hospitals, the elderly and those ill and living alone at all. They hadn't thought of the consequences of power being lost for safety, e.g. trains being stuck in tunnels, traffic systems being disrupted and police and other services being affected. They also hadn't considered the economic consequences which pay for their lifestyles.

What this rather addled woman, who is worryingly training to be a barrister here in the UK and could potentially be a court judge, wants is to clear these 'protestors' because of her belief in AGW.

Rather more strangely James Hansen, activist and someone who remember is in charge of making 2010 the warmest on record, decided that his CO2 bootprint wasn't big enough so he flew in to the UK personally to provide defence testimony.

Hansen had flown overnight from his home in the US to give evidence about the science of climate change and in particular the threat posed to humanity by the burning of coal at plants such as E.ON's at Ratcliffe-on-Soar.

During his two-hour testimony and cross-examination, Ed Rees QC, for the defence, stopped him repeatedly to ask him to explain the technical terms he was using. But the message he delivered was the clearest – and starkest – crash course in climate change the jury, the judge and members of the public in the gallery are ever likely to get.

Hansen, whose speech to Congress in 1988 is seen as pivotal in first bringing climate change to the world's attention, is well-versed in speaking out against the coal industry. Nottingham is not the first British court where he has given evidence. He testified last year in the case of the "Kingsnorth Six", who had climbed up E.ON's coal plant. They also used the climate change defence – that their actions were designed to prevent immediate harm to human life and property from climate change – and were acquitted.

The day after last Monday's trial, he flew to Switzerland from East Midlands airport to try to dissuade the government there from building a new coal plant. In the past 18 months, he has been arrested twice in the US in protests against coal mining.

Thankfully the court didn't see it that way and found them guilty as charged and they have been given community orders and have to do free work for a number of hours. Personally I hope they have to work in a coal mine. But thats me.

Of course for the science part, we need to look at CO2 itself. How about Bob Carter who is a skeptic scientist - as in he knows what he is talking about. He doesn't think CO2 is a driver of climate anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI