Dhamma Wheel Buddhist Forum

The strangest people are having to take climate change into account ...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-25/c ... ce/4591676


Kim

Kim O'Hara wrote:I have told you repeatedly why it it not useful or relevant and you can't or won't answer those points but you ...

Climate does not have to favor humans, dinosaurs, bacteria, plants or whatever. It is what it is, it was before us and it will be on the planet after us. We are historically irrelevant to Earth considering geological timespans.

Today's CO2 or temperature levels are historically extreme. Extremely low.

I don't think that it is fair to compare current co2/temp levels to extremely low point in Earth's history rather than to more USUAL average.

1 million (or so) sidestep in that chart is not too big considering that it shows 600 million years of data.
1 million from 4.5 billion years is 0.022...%
10 million compared to 4.5 billion years is 0.22...%

Just like we cannot judge the trend of a football game by 1/100th of second, same with humans unless you answer three points in my post above.

Kim O'Hara wrote: This time I tracked it down to its source instead - a franklydenialist blog by one Paul MacRae, who introduces himself thus:

My name is Paul MacRae. I’m an ex-journalist who has worked as an editor, editorial writer and columnist for several newspapers over the past 40 years, including The Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, Bangkok Post, and Victoria Times Colonist.

As long as the data is correct, I don't care who (Muslim, Christian, Scientist, Non Scientist, Oil & gas executive, AGW proponent, etc) drew it. I am interested in argument itself, not the source who said it.

Kim O'Hara wrote:The strangest people are having to take climate change into account ...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-25/c ... ce/4591676


Kim

Of course climate changes, and has been doing so for 4.5 Billion years. A commander could make serious mistakes if he didn't take climate and other factors into consideration.

I didn't see in the article any mention of human caused climate change. It was just about Australian commanders considering climate change and its implications for defense purposes and such.

Bad events can happen in cold weather. Bad events can happen in hot weather.
Climate change can be a threat, and so is aging and death is threat to us all. Samsara is not a perfect place and will never be.

Alex123 wrote:As long as the data is correct, I don't care who (Muslim, Christian, Scientist, Non Scientist, Oil & gas executive, AGW proponent, etc) drew it. I am interested in argument itself, not the source who said it.

So you would accept the authority of a back-yard mechanic over the authority of a doctor when it came to diagnosing your cracked rib?
And you would accept the authority of Sarah Palin over the authority of Bhikku Bodhi when it came to explaining the finer points of dependent origination?
And you would accept your local court reported as your attorney when you were hauled before the court for trashing your local Macca's in a drunken frenzy? (It's okay, I know you didn't do it but someone mis-identified you)


Kim

Kim O'Hara wrote:

monkey_brain wrote:

Kim O'Hara wrote:Just about every aspect of modern climatology is affected by AGW.
Numbers will depend on your definition of "climatologist". 1200 volunteered to contribute to the latest IPCC report (see http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ar5.html) and they would have been among the most highly qualified ... give each of them a half a dozen junior staff and half a dozen post-grad students and a dozen undergrad students and you're in the right ballpark.

Kim

Hold on. Looking at the chapter summaries of the working groups, the vast majority of the work is not concerned with the crux of the issue--what are the cause(s) of recent warming, and will it continue in the future, and to what extent. Impacts on Agriculture in Africa, say, doesn't call on quite the same expertise, nor need it be controversial in the way the main issue is. And if a research team that projects warming into the future relies on the work of a research team that worked on the methodology of using tree ring cores to generate historical temperatures, or whatnot, it is still the first team that gets counted as relevant climatologists for our purposes.

It looks like just parts of working group I fits the bill here.

Paul J.

Don't like that? Try this: http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-cl ... -pie-chart.
Anther back-of-the-envelope calculation - simply because I don't know where you would find the number you want - but ...

You don't know and yet were happy to assert thousands.

Kim O'Hara wrote: 14 000 scientific papers in 20 years (rounding off a bit since we're not going to be very accurate anyway).
That's 3500 per year.
Assume each researcher publishes 5 papers per year (which I think is fairly reasonable), and you get 700 researchers.
But 2 - 5 authors per paper is pretty normal. Call the average 2 to be on the low side and you have 1400 researchers getting published; call it three and you have 2100. Then add in the postgrad students, the undergrads if you like ...

The point that you will not take is that it is a small fraction of those papers that are even attempting to make a case for AGW. And yet they all get added together to build the big rhetorical club: "why you think your own knowledge, your own research and your own "found it on the internet" factoids outweigh the combined research of thousands of fully trained, hardworking and conscientious climatologists". Push just a little bit on the "thousands" and it turns out to be an assumption (to put it charitably). I'm guessing the valorizing attributions "fully trained", "hardworking", and "conscientious" are likewise pulled out of...the air, let's say.

Kim O'Hara wrote: I'm happy to let my "thousands" stand. If you want to disagree, show me some evidence for your position and I will happily defer to the truth.

I want you to be happy. So while it is evident that neither one of knows, I'll join you in letting your "thousands" stand, wobbly legged, like a newborn colt.

Paul J.

global warming is a conspiracy of doughface liberal commies, i'll tell ya what.

convivium wrote:global warming is a conspiracy of doughface liberal commies, i'll tell ya what.

What a convivial thought to share!

monkey_brain wrote:

Kim O'Hara wrote: I'm happy to let my "thousands" stand. If you want to disagree, show me some evidence for your position and I will happily defer to the truth.

I want you to be happy. So while it is evident that neither one of knows, I'll join you in letting your "thousands" stand, wobbly legged, like a newborn colt.

Paul J.

I don't think you read to the bottom of my response at http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 20#p237350 - or maybe you read it in the ten minutes between posting and and adding the P.S.
I still don't "know", of course but my estimate is not as wobbly as you say.
And I'm still happy with it.

Kim

Kim O'Hara wrote:

Alex123 wrote:As long as the data is correct, I don't care who (Muslim, Christian, Scientist, Non Scientist, Oil & gas executive, AGW proponent, etc) drew it. I am interested in argument itself, not the source who said it.

So you would accept the authority of a back-yard mechanic over the authority of a doctor when it came to diagnosing your cracked rib?
And you would accept the authority of Sarah Palin over the authority of Bhikku Bodhi when it came to explaining the finer points of dependent origination?
And you would accept your local court reported as your attorney when you were hauled before the court for trashing your local Macca's in a drunken frenzy? (It's okay, I know you didn't do it but someone mis-identified you)


Kim

Dear Kim,

I accept valid arguments and reject invalid arguments. As I've said, I don't care who (Journalist, AGW proponent, Oil & Gas executive, Christian, Muslim, etc) gave data, as long as it is correct data. Ad hominem is not an argument.

If an argument is proper, I don't care who vocally said it or written it, as long as argument is proper.


Here I don't accept authority, just the data.

Alex123 wrote:I accept valid arguments and reject invalid arguments.

What is your evidence (please cite sources) for accepting the authority non-climate scientists over the authority of climate scientists?

Again, I am not asking you to rehash your interpretation of the data, just the reasons you accept one persons authority over the other.

If the majority scientific view is that we need to reduce carbon emissions, then isn't it reasonable that governments should follow this advice?

Buckwheat wrote:

Alex123 wrote:I accept valid arguments and reject invalid arguments.

What is your evidence (please cite sources) for accepting the authority non-climate scientists over the authority of climate scientists?

Again, I am not asking you to rehash your interpretation of the data, just the reasons you accept one persons authority over the other.

I go by evidence and data, not who (journalist, christian, muslim, climate scientist, Oil & Gas executive, etc) said it.

Can you please answer my three questions and I'll accept AGW.

porpoise wrote:If the majority scientific view is that we need to reduce carbon emissions, then isn't it reasonable that governments should follow this advice?

I am all for cleaner, greener environment. I am all for curbing excess consumption and useless waste.

happened upon this and within the first 15 mins or so there is a very important piece about how information should be treated in science (look out for the garden)

Alex123 wrote:

Buckwheat wrote:

Alex123 wrote:I accept valid arguments and reject invalid arguments.

What is your evidence (please cite sources) for accepting the authority non-climate scientists over the authority of climate scientists?
Again, I am not asking you to rehash your interpretation of the data, just the reasons you accept one persons authority over the other.

I go by evidence and data, not who (journalist, christian, muslim, climate scientist, Oil & Gas executive, etc) said it.

You obviously care something about who says what, because you are giving more weight to the interpretations of non-climateologists over the interpretations of climatologists. So again, why do you trust non-climate scientists more than you trust climate scientists?

Alex123 wrote:Can you please answer my three questions and I'll accept AGW.

I have done this several times over, and you ignore my evidence in favor of yours, which I personally find to be less trustworthy.

Another interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming