On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> >>> So, like a creationist >>> >> >> >> You need a new insult, you've used that one before. >> > > > It's not an insult > Of course not, I'm sure that being insulting was the furthest thing from your mind. > This focus on "occasional anomalies" while ignoring all the successes is > certainly characteristic of your own style of argument If we didn't "focus on occasional anomalies" the old theories would be good enough and we'd never learn anything new. Another such oddity is why "OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar. http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21574461-climate-may-be-heating-up-less-response-greenhouse-gas-emissions > it's an observation of how various specific modes of argument you use are > analogous to those of creationists. I have noticed that all people who > confidently argue for fringe positions on scientific issues > What fringe position on a scientific issue have I taken? All I've said it that it's clear that things have been getting warmer and it's not clear how much warmer they will get in the future and it's even less clear what if anything we should do about it. I actually think that's pretty damn non-controversial. > >> "The Sierra Club advocates the decommissioning of Glen Canyon Dam and > the draining of Lake Powell. The Club also supports removal, breaching or > decommissioning of many other dams, including four large but high-cost dams > on the lower Snake River in eastern Washington." > > > Urging some specific dams to be removed is not the same as your strawman > Man oh man, I can see that you REALLY like that word. > "Stop all dam construction and dismantle the ones already built." And > again, this has nothing specifically to do with global warming. Untrue, hydro electric energy like nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gasses that you seem to think is so very important. > "The Sierra Club opposes a ballot measure to add fluoride to Portland >> Oregon's drinking water." >> > > > That doesn't seem relevant to supporting ANY of your list items, and > again has nothing to do with global warming > I know, but I couldn't resist showing how crazy environmental organizations have become. Back in the 1950s and 60s it was wacky right wing groups that opposed fluoridation because of it being a evil communist plot, Stanley Kubrick brilliantly satirized it in his movie "Dr. Strangelove" when a looney Air force General starts world war 3 to stop fluoridation and the pollution of our precious bodily fluids. Today crazy left wing groups are taking over from crazy right wing groups. >> And of the 11 imbecilic proposals I list above which ones would the >> European Green Party oppose? >> > > > I don't follow European politics too closely, but the strawman is that > I know that "strawman" is your favorite word but the Green Party is mainstream and the most powerful environmental organization in Europe, and the Greens are imbeciles > we aren't talking about the human "effect on the environment" in general, > we're talking about whether human activity is the main cause of the recent > pronounced warming trend since 1950 or so. > It's entirely possible. So what? > If you don't dispute that SPECIFIC claim, then you should agree that if > we continue with CO2 emissions at about the same level over the next > century, then it seems likely that global temperature will continue to rise > What makes you think it is linear? And suppose it does continue to rise, is that bad? And if it is bad should we do something about it now or wait until we find a solution that doesn't cause more problems than it solves? You seem to think that doing something right now is the safe conservative approach but it's not because any dramatic reduction in fossil fuel without big increases in nuclear power will kill millions of people and impoverish billions. And those same climate models that you love so much say that anything short of a immediate and draconian reduction of greenhouse gases will have a negligible effect on the climate a century from now. >> I would be surprised if the greenhouse effect did not play a part but >>> exactly how and which greenhouse gas was most important I don't know. >>> However I do know that no explanation is better than a bad explanation. >>> >> >> > Do you have any actual evidence that the explanations of climate >> scientists for prehistoric temperature variations are "bad"? >> > It's not my responsibility to provide evidence that climate models are bad, it's climate scientists responsibility to provide evidence that they're good, good enough for me to stake my life on. > you've shown a non-joking faulty understanding of physics plenty of times > in the past (like your ideas about entropy being proportional to the number > of ways a state could be generated, > Bullshit. BULLSHIT! I said entropy is proportional to the LOGARITHM of the number of states because Boltzmann's entropy formula is S= kLnW where W is the number of microstate in a given macrostate and and Ln is the logarithm function and k is a constant of proportionality. That's why Wikipedia says " in short, the Boltzmann formula shows the relationship between entropy and the number of ways the atoms or molecules of a thermodynamic system can be arranged". >or your idea that spacetime curvature is judged differently by different > observers > Show me where I said that! Come on I dare you, show me! I'll tell you what I did say on February 21: "All observers will agree that spacetime inside the elevator is curved but they might not know if the curvature was cause by rockets or a gravitational field". And "all observers in any frame will agree on the measured speed of light and the distance between two events in spacetime". And "Acceleration is absolute in that there is no need to look outside your reference frame to detect it, but according to General Relativity there is no way to tell the difference between it and being in a gravitational field." And "if you were inside that sealed elevator you couldn't tell if the curvature was caused by rockets accelerating the elevator in deep space or if it was caused by the Earth's gravity. Acceleration is absolute in that there is no need to look outside your reference frame to detect it, but according to General Relativity there is no way to tell the difference between it and being in a gravitational field." And I said any observer can tell if spacetime is curved by measuring the angles of a triangle: "Add up the 3 measurements. If the sum comes out to be exactly 180 then you know that the spacetime within your sealed elevator is flat. If the sum comes out as any number other than 180 then you know that the spacetime within your sealed elevator is not flat; but unless you take into consideration tidal effects (which will always occur in a gravitational field if the elevator is not infinitesimally small) you will not know if the spacetime curvature was caused by gravity or by a rocket. " > you're unwilling to accurately depict the beliefs of those you disagree > with > And we're all so very fortunate that you wouldn't dream of doing anything like that. > Are you objecting to the claims of astrophysicists about how energy from > type G stars like our Sun varies with time > Obviously not. > or the claims of paleoclimatologists about the evidence supporting their > estimates of the concentrations of various gases back then? > I'm not objecting to that either. I am objecting to the idea that if we know what the solar input and the air composition and what the climate was 450 million years ago then we can confidently predict what the climate will be with a diferent solar input and different atmospheric chemistry. >>> and the different prehistoric arrangement of continents. >> > >> Why would the effects be linear or simple? >> > > > I don't know that it's actually true that geologists take the movement > of the continents to be "linear",but since they claim to have a good idea > of the overall continental arrangement in the Ordovician, I assume they > probably know what they're talking about. > Airflow over continents, particularly mountainous ones, is about as far from linear as you can get. >>>> Are really you so confident they did it correctly that you are quite >>>> literally willing to stake your life on it? You'd better be because that's >>>> what you're asking us to do. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Are you really so confident that evolutionists do the science >>> correctly that you are willing to stake your eternal soul on it?" >>> >> >> >> Yes. I answered your question so now answer mine. >> > > > Do you believe you actually have an eternal soul, > No. I answered your question so now answer mine. > and that your decisions in life determine whether it'll go to heaven or he > No. I answered your question so now answer mine. > > > I can't just answer "yes" or "no" > I know because giving a straight answer will make you look foolish. > the answer is "no", then you should have said something like "I disagree > with the basic premises of the question" But I don't disagree because the question was well formed so I was was able to give a clear answer without embarrassment or looking foolish. I answered your question so now answer mine. > Can you point to some mainstream climate scientists who think a rise of 3 > or 4 degrees has a significant chance of being a "good thing"? > http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html Also, scientists don't get much better that Freeman Dyson and this is what he had to say on the subject: "I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. *It's a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe.*The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. *The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand.* It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models". John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
