JackC 0
mikkey 0
The reason I provided the initial link plus some others, was simply to revisit this debate because nearly every new empirical data does not fit the models used by AGW proponents and ALL the forecasts and estimates made by the IPCC in previous years have so far NOT come to fruition.
I find it amazing that not more people are starting to revisit their positions (actually quite a few scientists actually are). I find it also annoying how the media is repeating alarmist stories without checking the facts. Al Gore was just down here and repeated some of these lies and it really gets up my nose.
It is not long ago when we here were told by AGW scientists that the bleaching of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef was caused by AGW i.e. CO2 and that the Reef would be dead soon. Since then the coral has begun to recover rapidly - so clearly nothing to do with CO2. I could go on and on - from lack of predicted seas rises, increases of Antarctic ice instead of catastrophic decline, lack of temperature increase etc. etc.
AGW fits so nicely into the modern feeling of humans being guilty and destroying the planet. The comparison to a new age Catholicism where humans are born with guilt is quite interesting.
I can not understand why we are introducing ineffective new tax schemes (carbon trading) that will destroy industries (very important ones here in Australia) and which will just shift to China and India without having any effect even if the AGW theories had some merits.
I am all for subsidising and developing alternative energy sources - carbon based energy is finite. But we are sucked into stupid ways of doing it and lots of other ineffective measures.
It will be interesting to see how this debate develops as the empiric data continues to undermine the theory and models.
For me the moment of truth came to me when I found out years ago that it was so warm in the Viking age that Monks in England produced wine and the Vikings grew crops on Greenland (and called the place "Green"land). I was asking myself - when we see such strong fluctuations in a thousand years (swinging back to a little ice age a few hundred years ago during this period and then back to warming) - why do we insist that a recent warming period has to be man made?
For those who are open minded - try to read and follow some of the links I provided. Most of the media has invested too much into the AGW hype to fairly report on this issue. Do your own research and try to read what some very respected and qualified sientists on the other side have to say.
I find it amazing that not more people are starting to revisit their positions (actually quite a few scientists actually are). I find it also annoying how the media is repeating alarmist stories without checking the facts. Al Gore was just down here and repeated some of these lies and it really gets up my nose.
It is not long ago when we here were told by AGW scientists that the bleaching of the coral in the Great Barrier Reef was caused by AGW i.e. CO2 and that the Reef would be dead soon. Since then the coral has begun to recover rapidly - so clearly nothing to do with CO2. I could go on and on - from lack of predicted seas rises, increases of Antarctic ice instead of catastrophic decline, lack of temperature increase etc. etc.
AGW fits so nicely into the modern feeling of humans being guilty and destroying the planet. The comparison to a new age Catholicism where humans are born with guilt is quite interesting.
I can not understand why we are introducing ineffective new tax schemes (carbon trading) that will destroy industries (very important ones here in Australia) and which will just shift to China and India without having any effect even if the AGW theories had some merits.
I am all for subsidising and developing alternative energy sources - carbon based energy is finite. But we are sucked into stupid ways of doing it and lots of other ineffective measures.
It will be interesting to see how this debate develops as the empiric data continues to undermine the theory and models.
For me the moment of truth came to me when I found out years ago that it was so warm in the Viking age that Monks in England produced wine and the Vikings grew crops on Greenland (and called the place "Green"land). I was asking myself - when we see such strong fluctuations in a thousand years (swinging back to a little ice age a few hundred years ago during this period and then back to warming) - why do we insist that a recent warming period has to be man made?
For those who are open minded - try to read and follow some of the links I provided. Most of the media has invested too much into the AGW hype to fairly report on this issue. Do your own research and try to read what some very respected and qualified sientists on the other side have to say.
---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.
chasteh 0
>>Hint: It has everything to do with dogmatism.
>Funny. That's Mike's frequent point.
Yea, if only he didn't have such a dogmatic approach hisself (sorry- it's-self) on so many issues on this forum, we might actually have reason left to accept what he has to say this time.
>Yes. At least he should be. In college and law school I challenged my professors. I was fortunate to have a few that WANTED t be challenged.
Great. Kallend seems to be one of those people.
>I don't think there is anyone better at this than billvon. Well, maybe me. Billvon has actually changed my opinion on some things. Again, because afyer reflection I conclude he is actually right.
>I note that historically, innovation and enlightenment come from those who are not in the established elite
Being from the southwest, i.e. New Mexico, I have never met a professor that is amongst the "elite." Each of my professors has made less than 40,000 a year.
I note that at times innovation and enlightenment come from those who are in the established elite. Like Professor Isaac Newton, Or Professor Galileo Galilei.
Therefore, your notion that innovation historically comes from those who are not in the established elite isn't absolute. Actually, it means that socioeconomic status or stature don't always play a role. However, it often does play a role, like when a guy named Copernicus discovered that the Earth was indeed NOT the center of the Universe. He was also part of the social elite, born to a wealthy family.
Schwiiiing!!!
>Funny. That's Mike's frequent point.
Yea, if only he didn't have such a dogmatic approach hisself (sorry- it's-self) on so many issues on this forum, we might actually have reason left to accept what he has to say this time.
>Yes. At least he should be. In college and law school I challenged my professors. I was fortunate to have a few that WANTED t be challenged.
Great. Kallend seems to be one of those people.
>I don't think there is anyone better at this than billvon. Well, maybe me. Billvon has actually changed my opinion on some things. Again, because afyer reflection I conclude he is actually right.
>I note that historically, innovation and enlightenment come from those who are not in the established elite
Being from the southwest, i.e. New Mexico, I have never met a professor that is amongst the "elite." Each of my professors has made less than 40,000 a year.
I note that at times innovation and enlightenment come from those who are in the established elite. Like Professor Isaac Newton, Or Professor Galileo Galilei.
Therefore, your notion that innovation historically comes from those who are not in the established elite isn't absolute. Actually, it means that socioeconomic status or stature don't always play a role. However, it often does play a role, like when a guy named Copernicus discovered that the Earth was indeed NOT the center of the Universe. He was also part of the social elite, born to a wealthy family.
Schwiiiing!!!
Quote
>I note that historically, innovation and enlightenment come from those who are not in the established elite
I note that at times innovation and enlightenment come from those who are in the established elite. Like Professor Isaac Newton, Or Professor Galileo Galilei.
[/Reply]
Hmm. Interesting. First - Galileo merely confirmed Copernicus.
Second - Galileo also had the balls to go against the established dogma. Check out what happened to Galileo the Denier. He was held down, given house arrest, etc. Things aren't like that now, but to deny that there is an environment when scientists and laymen who point out problems with something like AGW are pretty well disparaged, placed on the fringe, etc.
Galileo is a fine example of what happens to a person who goes against the establishment dogma. That danger remains.
I also note that Newton was himself secretive of his experiments with alchemy, lest he get in trouble.
[Reply]Therefore, your notion that innovation historically comes from those who are not in the established elite isn't absolute.
Of course. But by its nature, the elite is the establishment who, perhaps, had brought about their own paradigm shift. Further challenges to the paradigm are to be looked upon with distrust.
Does anybody who has risen to the top on the basis of their theories want their theories to be proven wrong?
[Reply] Actually, it means that socioeconomic status or stature don't always play a role. However, it often does play a role, like when a guy named Copernicus discovered that the Earth was indeed NOT the center of the Universe.
Yes. He delayed publication for years and died right when his book was first printed.
[Reply] He was also part of the social elite, born to a wealthy family.
In the world of ideas and thought, there are those who control it. Hence, people are summarily identified by self-appointed arbiters as qualified or unqualified.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
You said:
And I gave you a link which demonstrates that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with an experiment that you can do yourself at home. You obviously think dropping apples proves Newton's laws then why doesn't the experiment in that link prove CO2 is a greehouse gas?
I have to wonder why you continue to bleat "show me the proof" when you have already decided that there is no proof that you will accept?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites