Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10861 - 10880 of total 28530 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:26am PT
Mad69Dog sez:

I see all the hate dumped on the Chief.


Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Try opposing one of The Chief's many views, Mad69Dog, and you will see what I mean. The angry man will begin to tear you down with his hatred, and you might not even be talking directly to him.

You worked with less than 200 researchers (153), and yet from this you claim "the vast majority of the world's leading scientists..." Your real-life observations seem to be riddled with bias. That doesn't do much to convince me of your scientific prowess.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:31am PT
MONO & KMAN!

You are really looking like some religious fanatical freaks that insists one must convert to their religion in order to see the light and be ... SAVED?

OR ELSE!!!!

WOW!


Your rhetoric is a complete de ja vu from this era...




Seriously.


KMAN:
The angry man will begin to tear you down with his hatred, and you might not even be talking directly to him.

WOW!

You just do not get it.


You all need to seriously regroup and rethink who and what you are doing. Really.

This dude can help do that...




And I think you most assuredly know where he stands on this AGW issue.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:45am PT
@ The Chief,
Bro, if I were a real friend of yours, I would take you aside and let you know that the way you address people turns them into your enemies.

The fact is, you would not have a single friend if you talked in person the way you do over the internet. I imagine that you might have a friend or two, and if indeed you do, you must be a very different person in real life because nobody who acts the way you do keeps friends for very long.

Of all the people with whom I've had personal interactions, either live or via written correspondence, there are very few who I consider to be 'enemies' of mine. Out of all people I've known, or have talked to, very few fall into the bucket into which I place you. And in that bucket are the people who I have zero desire to communicate with. It's a very lonely bucket, I'm not even sure there's more than one or two other people in there.

You might hold this as an honor. But believe me, it is just the opposite.
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:51am PT
k-man wrote:
Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Honestly, why do you care what The Chief thinks (of you or of an issue)? Why is it so important to you to convince him or bring him over to your point of view?

He has the minority opinion in this particular thread. Dude, let it go, you'll never ever get 100% of people to agree with you, whatever the issue.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:53am PT
KMAN!!!
The fact is, you would not have a single friend if you talked in person the way you do over the internet.

You truly are a conceited clueless isolated far tooo educated fool.

The more I read shet from the likes of you, folks like BURCHEY are looking more and more ... agreeable.

KMAN: Don't you have to go spend your hour kneeling and bowing to the bust of this dude you have in your Scientism shrine?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:59am PT
Mad dog - you sound really knowledgable and reasonable much like Rick Sumner, to the point where it is tempting to take your opinions at face value. Apparently you also have professional credibility on your side which is a massive advantage over mere rhetoric. you present as an authority.

if there is a single criticism I have of Rick it is his demonstrable and admitted inability to judge the science yet persisting with the pretence, which grants him liscence to believe the claims of the AGW deniers over the proponents. further to that, he generally avoids enquiry into his clearly right wing political leanings as explanation for his judgement on this choice. this is unfortunate as it obstructs a reasonable line of enquiry into why lay people chose one side or the other.

you claim the rather shocking statement that the majority of "scientists in the field" dispute that carbon emissions are the primary driver of GW. you must be aware that this runs contrary to all institutional and popular understanding. If you are right can you explain the gross disception that has been perpetuated for the past few decades? Rick Sumner claims that it is a vast global willfully organized communist plot. Surely you don,t believe this but what other explanation is there? You must be capable of expanding on this at length and in detail.

anyway, it is about time a denier / doubter with actual professional experience and credentials contributed something to the debate. hanks for piping up and we look forward to something more substantial than a Mad dog barking and an impostor posing.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:59am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:03pm PT
Hey MONO:


Come on over, bring your rig (if you have one that is) and let's play.

I got $500 bucks says you aint got one little tiny micro hair on your skinny runt ass (cus you smoked em all in that bong of yours *see above attached photo caught in the act*) to take me up.


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:05pm PT
Yo, Chief, can I bring my Hayabusa and join yous guys? ;-)
(you're gonna pick up the tab for the tickets, right?)
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:08pm PT
REILLY:
Bring it the SUZUKI rocket.

But where I will take you it will flail....




CHIPS and tickets will be the least of your worries.


BTW: Pics of your supposed SUZUKI ROCKET or you are full of shet.

Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
>Maddog, was John Travolta flying that C-130? Those weren't scientists...

Your credibility is questionable.

http://mirage-mex.acd.ucar.edu/
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:25pm PT
>you claim the rather shocking statement that the majority of "scientists in >the field" dispute that carbon emissions are the primary driver of GW.

I don't think those are my precise words but the devil is in the details. Depending on which measurements you choose to interpret, you can find real research data acquired by competent experimentalists that supports 'no global warming' and 'pro global warming' stances. The problem comes when you try to knit it all together into a global heat budget kind of perspective *THEN* point the finger at an un-isolated component such as CO2. We do not have a control to compare against, so attempting to isolate variables in an uncontrolled 'experiment' is fantasy. That is why so many scientists are skeptical that the proofs are valid.

>you must be aware that this runs contrary to all institutional and popular >understanding. If you are right can you explain the gross disception that >has been perpetuated for the past few decades? Rick Sumner claims that it >is a vast global willfully organized communist plot.

I think our media loves to grasp at a thread and interpret it beyond their expertise.

Remember, I said that I believe the ocean surface temperature trend review reports are valid because the data inputs are hugely broad and competent. For the layperson, those reports alone scream 'global warming' but to the road-weary geologist, it's business as usual.

>Surely you don,t believe this but what other explanation is there? You >must be capable of expanding on this at length and in detail.

People love simple answers - so do I! But these are highly complex phenomena and we are learning to collect and interpret the data right now. The problem is that we have snap-shots taken here and there on a sporadic time scale. We need much more data density, scattered appropriately around the globe and it has to be qualified data, meaning that outside inputs such as sunspot activity, etc., has to be there to help sort and classify. This is what happens when you work with chaotic systems - you end up data-starved.

Thanks for your polite and reasoned response. You are obviously in the upper intellectual classification on this forum - which is sparsely populated.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
Almost everyone,s credibility here is in doubt, which makes you a gold mine Mad dog.

The problem with the deductions of Rick are that his premises lack substance and considering his credibility, it is nt surprising. how about yours?


Edit: I see above thanks
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
>Could you please state what you think Al Gore's position on climate change to be?

You mean you don't have his book memorized?

http://www.amazon.com/An-Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency/dp/B000QEJ0WY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1377707488&sr=8-3&keywords=al+gore

wherein the summary states:

"The truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives. Our climate crisis may at times appear to be happening slowly, but in fact it has become a true planetary emergency and we must recognise that we are facing a crisis. So why is it that some leaders seem not to hear the clarion warnings? Are they resisting the truth because they know that the moment they acknowledge it, they will face a moral imperative to act? Is it simply more convenient to ignore the warnings? Perhaps, but inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen, rather, their significance grows. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, has been a passionate advocate of action to halt climate change for many years. In An Inconvenient Truth Gore writes about the urgent need to solve the problems of climate change, presenting comprehensive facts and information on all aspects of global warming in a direct, thoughtful and compelling way,using explanatory diagrams and dramatic photos to clarify and highlight key issues. The book has been described in the New York Times as one which could 'push awareness of global warming to a real tipping point'. The documentary film of the same name, based on the book, premiered at this year's Sundance Festival to great acclaim."

Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:00pm PT
>Mario Molina would likely call you out on that.

I spoke at length with Mario and his team. They were all advocates for increasing sensor density to improve the ability to model cause and effect. Why? To improve the ability to correlate selected variables with gross observables (such as temperature).

So, if you were to ask Mario if there is a positive trend in global surface temperature, I suspect he would say: "Yes", but if you asked if he had direct proof that greenhouse gases were the dominant factor in producing the temperature rise, you'd start hearing numerous qualifying remarks.

The reason scientists like to work in a lab is because one hopes to isolate the effect of key variables. When working in the environment, one can develop incredible analytical tools, but one also has little to know ability to control those key variables. Thus the integrity of cause and effect.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
Norton, right?

He blew all the credibility he built up with that one statement ;-)
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
You should be bantering this stuff with Ed or Chiloe but if you,ll humor me a bit, two things:

In a nut shell, my understanding in regarding the certainty or probability of AGW is based on not just the understanding of carbon influence ( considered well understood and adequately substantiated by observation) but also that the "natural" influences are understood well enough to only account for minor variation in change over the given time, thus known to be inconsequential relative to the rate of change.

You seem to be indicating that this understanding ( of the naturals at least ) is not adequately verifiable, meaning no matter the certainty of carbon emission effects, it may yet be proven to not be the dominant force.

again, the message I am getting, and not just through the popular media is that this is not true. the "unknowns" simply cannot account for observations without completely upsetting the "well knowns" of carbon emissions. I'm not sure if this makes sense but please have a stab at it.

which leads to the "trust ability" of institutional consensus. Conspiracies aside, at some point consensus must justify action . you suggest that it isn't there yet . This makes no sense considering that the " 97 percent" and all other institutional indications of certainty strongly suggest otherwise. I think you need to expand on this a little more than a vague allusion to media. We all know to take what they say about polar bears etc with a grain of salt. You dispute the significance of the 97 percent assertion as a valid indication of actionable certainty?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:33pm PT
Mario Molina very much believes CO2 is the most important and worrysome cause of global warming.

He just wants more attention paid to other items like like black carbon soot, methane, hcfs, which may help keep us from reaching the tipping point.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:44pm PT
Perhaps this helps..... I consider the 97 percent as a baseline, one that is substantiated more than enough to act on. Further inputs continue to support it or are inconsequential in challenging the premise of the baseline. Is that an accurate assessment?
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 02:35pm PT
>Mario Molina very much believes CO2 is the most important and worrysome cause of global warming.

But has his group been able to provide correlative proof? Belief in a hypothesis is part of the method, but only part. The '07 NOAA pub was the first to claim correlation and they have taken endless flack since publishing.

>so how about moving over to a discussion as to what exactly we humans can or should do about this recent warming trend we are on?

Sustained reduction of human population down to 1 or 2 billion would do wonders.
Messages 10861 - 10880 of total 28530 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews