Widescreen TV's a major contributor to the Global Warmigg Crisis.

Cynic wrote:

You are making the disparaging comments about the graph I referenced.
So perhaps you would like to state what exactly is wrong with that
graph or anything that I have said about it rather than indulging in
your habit of waffle and hand-waving generalisations?

I think waffle and generalisation with assorted forms of digital fanning
is all we can expect. It's amusing that the poor creature demands cast
iron evidence from others, while apparently being unable to reference a
relevant paragraph within a publication.

Steve Firth wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
(the last time you tried you thought a paper was on the
verge of being published

Well no I didn't but I thought that the paper was unpublished.

The exact words you used were "Why should I when the evidence *is in
the process of being published?*"

Yes, I thought the paper was in the process of being published.

You didn't read it very well them, did you? Otherwise you would have noticed
that *all* the referenced papers were rather old, in contrast to what you
would expect from a soon-to-be-published literature review on an area of
great topical interest.

You admit the paper exists, was published, and indeed that it refers
to extreme and rapid climatic variation within interglacials. Hence
you sort of admit by the back door that to state that current climate
change is either "unprecedented" or indeed "utterly unlike any
previous change" is a falsehood.

I "sort of admit" nothing of the kind. I directed you to, and actually
quoted from, the relevent section of the IPCC fourth assessment report from
working group 1. As I have pointed out, this is a much more recent and far
more thorough literature review than the 1999 one you produced. It lists in
the references (and I know this, because I checked) many of the papers cited
in the 1999 paper, as well as many more recent ones. And on the basis of all
this evidence, it comes to the conclusion that recent warming is proceeding
at an unprecedented rate with respect to previous climate changes. Your
confident (and childish) assertion that such a claim is "********", is
therefore itself ********.

Your credibility to comment on matters of climate science was shredded as
soon as you claimed that the "hockey stick" diagram provoked "gales of
laughter" from statisticians. It shows that you have bought into a
particularly pernicious line of denialist belief, from which I fear you will
be unable to emerge.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:48:23 GMT, JAF
wrote:

While you're here, have a look at this -
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...global+warming

What an excellent way to determine the truth! Find out how many
google hits each side of a debate has, and the one with the most must
be the truth.

Maybe you could do a similar test regarding "faries V no faries".,
"Flying saucers V no flying saucers", and of course, the number of
religious sites against the number of aetheist sites would answer the
question as to whether or not there is a god.

--
Cynic

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:47:25 GMT, JAF
wrote:


You really need to
learn how to extract and debate the *pertinent* points raised.
The only pertinent points to my post were the ones I quoted.
So that's alright then, innit?

As I said, You really need to learn how to extract and debate the
*pertinent* points raised.

We're all still waiting for you to raise *any* pertinent points.

Cynic wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:17:28 +0100, "Pyriform"
wrote:

Or do you object to the scientists doing the research getting paid?
Are you claiming to be a scientist? Excuse me while I laugh.
You're excused. Now answer the question.

Scientists who toe the line and support the academic popular view get
the research grants, support and kudos, scientists who question it get
starved out and ridiculed. Once a theory becomes entrenched, the idea
is to work on fitting any new data to the theory rather than vice
versa. The momentum becomes very difficult to stop.

It has been thus since Archimedes was a boy. It's a brave soul who
dares question the establishment!


It is a fool who questions the conservation of energy and that is basically
what you are doing when you question global warming. The inflow and outflow of
energy to the Earth has to balance or the temperature will change until it does
balance. CO2 (amongst other gasses and particulates) affects that flow. The
extra energy which accumulates raises the global temperature (that's the only
thing it CAN do) until the Earth can radiate enough to re-match the inflow. It
is helped to some extent because raising temperature increases cloud cover
which has the effect of reducing inflow - but nonetheless the temperature has
to go up.

Now that the last 'plausible' refuge of the climate deniers (namely, changes in
solar activity) has been show to be false. Is there anyone left who can deny
climate change without denying fundamental principles of physics?

Steve Firth wrote:
Pyriform wrote:

Go on, claim to be a scientist, that's good for a laugh.
What do you claim to be, apart from an idiot with no understanding of
science?
I am a scientist, with a decent career behind me. Ad hominem noted.
I see. So it's ok for you to laugh at my scientific credentials,

Your non-existent scientific credentials, I can't find a single paper
published by a Mr Pyriform.


Out of interest could you point me to your published papers? What area are they in?

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Have you ever even *heard* of the so-called "hockey stick" graph?
Have you even heard the gales of laughter that graph causes amongst
statisticians?
Name any one such statistician. That does not get paid by the
petrochemical industry.

Name any one suporter of "hockey stick" graphs that doesn't get a payoff
from their support. Climnate change is avery nice industry to be in for
many individuals.

That is *really* clutching at straws!

Cynic wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:17:17 +0100, The Magpie
wrote:

I have posted then twice in this thread. I am not wasting my time
posting them again.

I rather thought not. When challenged you do seem to try to hide.

Refusing to repost a URL that I have posted twice before to this
thread in the previous two days is "hiding" is it? What a
pathetically weak argument.

Then post it. Give me a laugh at it too.

What do you claim is laughable about the Vostok ice data graphs?

How would I know? I don't know what the links he claims are so good
even are. If I did, I could look at them.

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
The Magpie wrote:

[snip]
No, it is *far* from a "stupid assertion". It is, in fact, an
assertion made by every single reputable climate scientist in the
entire planet.
Name them.
Even *you* cannot be seriously asking that...

Ad hominem noted. Failure to address the question noted.

Please note that an "ad hominem" is "(of an argument) personal rather
than objective". Given that you were asking me to literally name every
single reputable climate scientist in the world my comment was neither
personal nor subjective. It was a clear and objective assessment of
your incredible inability to address the serious matters at hand.

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:47:56 +0100, Scott
wrote:

Or do you object to the scientists doing the research getting paid?
Are you claiming to be a scientist? Excuse me while I laugh.
You're excused. Now answer the question.

Scientists who toe the line and support the academic popular view get
the research grants, support and kudos, scientists who question it get
starved out and ridiculed. Once a theory becomes entrenched, the idea
is to work on fitting any new data to the theory rather than vice
versa. The momentum becomes very difficult to stop.

It has been thus since Archimedes was a boy. It's a brave soul who
dares question the establishment!


It is a fool who questions the conservation of energy and that is basically
what you are doing when you question global warming.

What absolute tripe!

The inflow and outflow of
energy to the Earth has to balance or the temperature will change until it does
balance. CO2 (amongst other gasses and particulates) affects that flow.

As well as a million and one other factors, yes.

The
extra energy which accumulates raises the global temperature (that's the only
thing it CAN do) until the Earth can radiate enough to re-match the inflow. It
is helped to some extent because raising temperature increases cloud cover
which has the effect of reducing inflow - but nonetheless the temperature has
to go up.

That's the pop-science in a nutshell, yes.

Now that the last 'plausible' refuge of the climate deniers (namely, changes in
solar activity) has been show to be false. Is there anyone left who can deny
climate change without denying fundamental principles of physics?

Yes. There are a million and one factors. Taking a handful and
ignoring the rest does *not* "balance the equation"

In any case, I am not denying the possibility of global warming, I am
denying the possibility of Man being able to do anything that stands a
chance of significantly changing things - whatever the cause

--
Cynic