Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7021 - 7040 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 19, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
Ed, it was long ago, and those papers are probably long since history as orgainizations came and went as well. Impossible for me to dredge specified documentation here in those regards. Your talking USFS record keeping back in the days of PAPER files lol!

I can give you a small sample in dealing with the fabeled spotted owl issues.. That guise was used to reject three units of old growth treatments we were doing at the top of Woodfords canyon. A location where there had never and would never be a spotted owl due to dramatic differences in over all habitat. But this was at the apex of science studies done and did they ever have it wrong. In fact they had it wrong all over the west really. But they refuted wildlife agencies and others that attempted to differ in their management practices. They took them to court many times over the same bad science. There were agendas back then as well that were the true drivers, the spotted owl was just the prop.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 19, 2013 - 03:50pm PT
I reject science! How can we trust any system of knowledge that involves modification of testable hypotheses?

I find it much easier to trust stories handed down through generations of desert wanderers or the subjective experience of folks who already agree with me. Besides, they never change their "hypotheses" so they MUST be right.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 19, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
i testified in court over that sale, and in the end we won. The court didnt buy that bad science presented either. But it was a three year process that in the end negated any profit by the sale to the district due to having to defend it. Govt and science in action...round and round we went to end up in the same friggin place.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 19, 2013 - 04:06pm PT
Ron, please provide specifics. Where was the sale? When did this occur? Surely you remember if you testified in court about it.

I want to check the FS records for more information.

Also, I can't find a single map that DOESN'T include Woodfords. Can you explain why that particular section of old growth forest within the accepted range "had never and would never" be home to a spotted owl? You say "dramatic differences in over all habitat." Please be specific.

http://www.owling.com/Spotted_nh.htm
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 19, 2013 - 04:07pm PT
I would bet Rick would be a science denier if it was not for the science behind the internal combustion engine in his f350.
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 04:16pm PT
One cannot conclude from the past 15 year instrumental record that the models, and the science are incorrect. Understanding the variability is a major interest to the science program, and increasing the temporal and spatial resolution of the modeling also a part of the program.

Very good diversion. Clap Clap. Not buying one word of it. Explains nothing regarding the fact that the models are consistently off by a considerable margin. They have never been close to reality. Never. The modelers are "smoothing" their data/models on a regular basis to coincide with real time global "signals". The "modelers" have to exhibit some sort of good faith after frequently being called on concerning their totally off base and complete science fiction computer model data. This must certainly all be "part of the program". The program of complete malarkey propaganda. All at the Amerikan tax payers expense.

Now that the real time "signals" indicate ZERO warming for the past 15 or so years, you produce the excuse of "variability". Please do explain the percentage time frame when signals are deemed consistent.

According to the Met Office , there has only been a rise in temps since the late 70's then it stagnated in 1998. That is roughly only a 20 year rise. Then a 15 year dead point. Would not the 20 or so year rise be considered a "variable" as well?




60+ % of the northern state lakes have yet to thaw out completely. Thus breaking and setting new records. "Variability" I presume.

Oh the horror of it all.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 19, 2013 - 04:32pm PT
Since Ron A equates the consensus of climate science experts to the faulty opinion of a MRI tech, one of you science experts should have a game of Chess (or Go) with Ron to illustrate that there are vast differences in brainpower between an expert and a layman.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 19, 2013 - 04:34pm PT
Knotts post is akin to me saying Rong uses the wrong glue for his owls... as in he doesn't know sh#t about the statistical methods or models he criticizes.

Admittedly, it is very involved and does take a certain level of commitment to fully understand it. And since you will never put in the commitment, please do continue to show your ignorance.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 19, 2013 - 04:38pm PT
Knotts ,how about posting a pic of yourself in a welders apron?
60% of northern lakes? It was 87f today.
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 07:49pm PT
and by the way, Knotts, the plot you show still has the temperature rising at nearly 1ēC/century...

Why thank you. You just endorsed my point regarding the IPCC's total fallacy with their climate modeling. Each and everyone of their models indicates 3-7 times the amount you just posted. Thus, you can throw your claim of variability in the trash.



Why did you start with 1851 Mr. Ed. There is plenty of data that goes back much further than that period.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 19, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
I reject science! How can we trust any system of knowledge that involves modification of testable hypotheses?

I'm incredulous.
rSin

Trad climber
calif
May 19, 2013 - 07:55pm PT
you wouldnt be if you had a handheld gizmo that could point out a witch at 20 feet which ran on a 9v battery
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 08:00pm PT
The models are total lies. All of them.
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 09:14pm PT
there are many others, aren't there?

There sure are. They are all way off. Way off. Guesses at best and many at the tax payers expense.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 19, 2013 - 09:46pm PT
Funny how you nuts will latch onto ANYTHING that supports your view, no matter how shaky the underlying assumptions... yet discard the vast majority of studies that have ACTUALLY gone through the peer review process but contradict your view.


Knott, you might want to provide references to your material. That figure you keep posting appears to come from Christy (but posted on http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/, clearly reputable). From my understanding, similar discrepancies can be seen when comparing measurements made with thermometers and temperatures estimated by the satellites.

Of course, we can't be sure that is what is going on until you provide us a link to the actual study that explains the details of what that graph is showing.
Bharata

Mountain climber
Pune
May 19, 2013 - 09:58pm PT
You do not remember this

Nepal's delegation at the Rio+20 Summit in Brazil (June 2012) argued their country cannot sacrifice economic growth to save the environment. Nepal does not like to say that very loud but any action to save the environment
will sadly be put off if it hinders business and tax revenue.

Pollution sources in the Khumbu are proliferating faster than rabbits chasing carrots: all that money from foreign trekkers and climbers.

The not so pristine volume of air now has thousands of pollution sources emitting particles that settling onto the ice so it melts faster. Scientists only now argue over who will be most accurate in predicting how many feet per year the dirty ice will recede.

http://nepalitimes.com/news.php?id=19368
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 19, 2013 - 11:03pm PT
Has a scientific hypothesis ever been developed then tested exclusively in the virtual world of computer modeling before? Furthermore, has the real world observations of failure of such hypothesis ever before been rejected in favor of a "virtual world consensus belief" in acceptance of the virtual world models? Are you CAGW guys part of a new age kookish religion? Knotts has presented graph after graph produced largely by your brothers fringe and you still cannot see reality.
El Cono

Boulder climber
Tierra Del Coņo
May 19, 2013 - 11:24pm PT
It must be hard to live in a 3-D world when all you have is two-dimensional senses.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 19, 2013 - 11:32pm PT
Are you CAGW guys part of a new age kookish religion?

You have made it clear plenty of times that it is your spiritual belief that gives you certainty about your climate beliefs.

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/05/18/is-the-holocaust-denialclimate/
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
May 19, 2013 - 11:53pm PT
^^^ well I would match that with ur scientific certainy of where and when it's going to rain..
Messages 7021 - 7040 of total 25079 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