Extreme is the New Normal

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:21 am

Alex123 wrote:Please reply to my post at and refute it point by point in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&view=unread#p118616

Alex,
I have told you that I won't, and given reasons.
If I had all the time in the world (and I don't), the best reason would be one which is an automatic result of the fact that I am not an expert myself but rely on experts, i.e. you would be getting second-hand information rather than the real deal.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 2:35 am

Hi Kim,

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Please reply to my post at and refute it point by point in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&view=unread#p118616

Alex,
I have told you that I won't, and given reasons.


So you can't refute my points. How can 0.001935% human contribution to the atmosphere of the gas that doesn't cause warming alter the global climate?

Kim O'Hara wrote:If I had all the time in the world (and I don't), the best reason would be one which is an automatic result of the fact that I am not an expert myself but rely on experts, i.e. you would be getting second-hand information rather than the real deal.
:namaste:
Kim


Since you are not an expert yourself, how do you know that your people are not making any mistakes?


For example, another pearl from your website:
"CO2 has caused an accumulation of heat in our climate. The radiative forcing from CO2 is known with high understanding and confirmed by empirical observations."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... ediate.htm

This is incorrect that human produced CO2 has caused accumulation of heat in our climate.
1st)
CO2 makes about 0.0387% (in 2009) of atmospheric volume. A tiny amount of which we contribute less than <5% .
5% of 0.0387% = 0.05 * 0.0387% = 0.001935% of human contribution to the atmosphere. Near Zero!
Natural processes contributes, the rest, 99.998065% to the atmosphere.

2nd)
Even if CO2 levels were many times higher, radiative heating physics shows that it would make virtually no difference to temperature because it has a very limited heating ability. With CO2, the more there is, the less it heats because it quickly becomes saturated.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

3rd)
According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend

According to predictions of Global Warming believers, the temperatures had to continue to rise. But they didn't. Despite the rising of the CO2 levels (as it naturally has occurred) the temperatures have not followed up. It is contradictory to say that global warming (warming!) causes some temperatures to cool...



CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur ... tm#suspend
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:15 am

Alex123 wrote:Hi Kim,

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Alex123 wrote:Please reply to my post at and refute it point by point in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&view=unread#p118616

Alex,
I have told you that I won't, and given reasons.


So you can't refute my points.

Not can't, won't. Such childishness is ... unattractive.

Then you go on to attack 'my' experts with 'your' experts which brings us back to the question you keep avoiding.
There is only one sensible question in your last post and I will answer it if you can identify it to me.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:21 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:Not can't, won't. Such childishness is ... unattractive.


So you can't. And I suspect neither can your "experts".


Principle 15: “In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/ ... annex1.htm

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, former Minister of the Environment of Canada quote from the Calgary Herald, 1999
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_a ... hor2108263


I don't trust such experts, who themselves admit the lack of scientific proof. This I hope answers your question, as to why I choose experts.



With metta,

Alex
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:47 am

Alex, you have just called me a liar.
Please apologise.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 1:48 pm

If you can answer my questions, then please do. You've been calling my science "junk science" and lied when you said that I've ever said that "CO2 significantly heats up the planet"

Kim O'Hara wrote:I'm sorry, but you did say it. You also said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118336

Please apologize for claiming that I've said what I didn't say.



In quote below, you have called my statements to be junk science.
Kim O'Hara wrote: Alex,
You have slipped back into trusting junk science ahead of the strong consensus of expert opinion...
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=140#p112503


Kim O'Hara wrote:
Of course I understand what you meant. I was deliberately being dishonest as an example of of how easy it is, and I said so.
You are still refusing the crucial question I have asked you, andstill showering me with - to put it in frankly Aussie terms - bullshit.
I don't think this conversation can go any further until you address the question, and (as I said before) I am not interested in responding to the bullshit.Over to you.
:namaste:
Kim
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118370


(underlines are mine)
Please apologize for calling my responces "bullshit"
In the posts below that post of yours, I've given answers.




Kim, please answer:
How can 0.001935% human contribution to the atmosphere of the gas that doesn't cause warming alter the global climate?
CO2 doesn't cause GW:
Please answer my post:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118616


You can use quotes from your experts if you don't want to type answer yourself.
If you have read the site of your own experts, and understand it, you should have no problem refuting what I've said point-by-point.
If you haven't read that site with "expert" opinion, or have not understood their reply, then on what basis do you trust them? This may explain your unwillingness to engage in a rational dialogue and refute what I've said in my posts point-by-point.


I guess when you can't rationally answer, you attack the messanger or claim lack of time. This is page #14 and you still haven't proven AGW.


If you have answered my questions about AGW in this thread, please repost them or give links to those pages in this thread where you have. "Junk science", "bullshit", "I trust the experts" is not an appropriate and convincing answer.

The reason I don't blindly trust AGW "experts" is because they themselves admitted their lack of certain scientific proof and trying to scare us.
See bottom of this post:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118364


Your yourself have said:
Kim O'Hara wrote:Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=220#p117724


Prove that!
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 3:40 pm

United Nations' Experts Doctor Evidence
'Hot Politics' by James M. Sheehan (July 1996)

As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.

The IPCC's 1995 report, the final version of which was published in June, is supposed to represent the consensus of world scientific experts regarding the highly controversial issue of global warming. The panel's work is relied upon by Global Climate Convention negotiators who are considering possible curbs on the use of fossil fuels, such as energy taxes. The IPCC's reputation for objectivity rests upon its commitment to balanced scientific opinion arrived at through the process of peer review.

Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz called the last-minute editing a "disturbing corruption of the peer review process" which could "deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."

Seitz's remarks set off tremors throughout the scientific community. Several articles about the controversy appeared in the New York Times and Energy Daily, as well as the prestigious journals Science and Nature. The IPCC's Sir John Houghton labeled the charges "appalling," and maintained that the re-write "improved the science." Lead author Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, denied wrongdoing and claimed that IPCC rules allow modifications "to improve the report's scientific clarity." However, the deletions were more than minor clarifications. Key portions accepted by contributing scientists were later removed or altered without their knowledge. The changes functioned to suppress doubts and to downplay uncertainties about forecasting a human influence on climate. For example, Santer told Science that in a discussion of when scientists will be able attribute climate change to human causes, he removed the phrase "we do not know" because it overstated doubts that human activity can be blamed.

The IPCC's explanations bolster the impression that the revisions were politically motivated. Santer cites a November State Department memo to the IPCC advising "that chapter authors modify the text in an appropriate manner." According to an editorial in Nature, IPCC officials said that revisions to the text were needed "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary of the full report," a document whose language is voted on by government delegates. Thus the process is heavily influenced by government officials, including non-scientists.

The IPCC had a rather different response to earlier efforts to modify its report. During peer review, Britain's Global Commons Institute (GCI) took issue with a finding in Chapter 6 that the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions may exceed the predicted economic damage from global warming. Demanding that the damage be calculated in a way which showed that richer countries owe "compensation" to the Third World, GCI orchestrated an effort by delegates from Cuba and the Alliance of Small Island States to rewrite the report, replacing all damage estimates with warnings about "the loss of unique cultures." In response, senior IPCC official James Bruce insisted that the proper time to make revisions under IPCC rules was during two prior rounds of peer review: "At this stage [the October 1995 Montreal working group], the authors can make a few editorial changes for clarity of reading, but not changes to the meaning or substance of the report" (italics added).

Perhaps IPCC officials should consult one another regarding their contrasting interpretations of IPCC procedures. Both environmentalist groups, like GCI and Greenpeace, and industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition, are having great difficulty understanding how the IPCC conducts itself with regard to peer review. What is clear, however, is that the UN panel is so thoroughly politicized that its integrity and objectivity cannot be taken for granted.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/hot.htm
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 5:27 pm

Seeing that this is a discussion only between the two of you, why don't you just take it private? Once you reach the point of demanding apologies from each other, the discussion has devolved awfully far.
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby mikenz66 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 7:26 pm

:coffee:
User avatar
mikenz66
 
Posts: 10136
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby nathan » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:03 pm

Congratulations to both of you, I no longer care what either side thinks about anything about these issues.
But whoever walking, standing, sitting, or lying down overcomes thought, delighting in the stilling of thought: he's capable, a monk like this, of touching superlative self-awakening. § 110. {Iti 4.11; Iti 115}
nathan
 
Posts: 692
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:11 am

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 8:06 pm

nathan wrote:Congratulations to both of you, I no longer care what either side thinks about anything about these issues.


That was pretty funny. :toast:
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Kim OHara » Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:44 pm

andre9999 wrote:Seeing that this is a discussion only between the two of you, why don't you just take it private? Once you reach the point of demanding apologies from each other, the discussion has devolved awfully far.

As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over.
I was, as patiently as I know how, trying to show Alex *that* he was wrong and *why* he was wrong, right up until he called me a liar - which I think was the only way he could think of shielding himself, at that stage, from critically examining his beliefs, and that's a bit sad.
:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:00 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote: I was, as patiently as I know how, trying to show Alex *that* he was wrong and *why* he was wrong,


Calling what I've said "Junk science" and "bullshit" is not a rational reply.

Kim O'Hara wrote:I'm sorry, Alex, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to slog through the loads of junk science you have put up,
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118359


Kim O'Hara wrote: Alex,
You have slipped back into trusting junk science ahead of the strong consensus of expert opinion...
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=140#p112503


Kim O'Hara wrote:
Of course I understand what you meant. I was deliberately being dishonest as an example of of how easy it is, and I said so.
You are still refusing the crucial question I have asked you, andstill showering me with - to put it in frankly Aussie terms - bullshit.
I don't think this conversation can go any further until you address the question, and (as I said before) I am not interested in responding to the bullshit.Over to you.
:namaste:
Kim
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118370



Please post a link where you have "shown me wrong" and refuted what I've said point-by-point.

Kim, please answer:
How can 0.001935% human contribution to the atmosphere of the gas that doesn't cause warming alter the global climate?

Please answer my post in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118616

Kim O'Hara wrote:Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=220#p117724


Prove that!



Kim O'Hara wrote:
right up until he called me a liar - which I think was the only way he could think of shielding himself, at that stage, from critically examining his beliefs, and that's a bit sad.
:namaste:
Kim


Where?

Kim O'Hara wrote: Not can't, won't. Such childishness is ... unattractive.

Alex wrote:So you can't. And I suspect neither can your "experts".

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=260#p118664


Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex, you have just called me a liar.
Please apologise.
:namaste:
Kim
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=260#p118667




If you can answer what I've asked then do it. Where in our 14 page discussion have you refuted point by point what I've said?



If you have answered my questions about AGW in this thread, please repost them or give links to those pages in this thread where you have answered them. "Junk science", "bullshit" and "I trust the experts" is not an appropriate and convincing answer.


The reason I don't blindly trust AGW "experts" is because they themselves admitted their lack of certain scientific proof and trying to scare us.
See bottom of this post:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=240#p118364
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:11 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:09 pm

Alex, take your meds.
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 10:13 pm

andre9999 wrote:Alex, take your meds.



Do you have any rational point-by-point refutation to what I've asked? Or will you attack me instead?


Am I saying something really wrong?

Kim O'Hara wrote:Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=220#p117724


Is the above right? If so (Kim or someone else), prove it.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:14 pm

Alex123 wrote:Do you have any rational point-by-point refutation to what I've asked? Or will you attack me instead?

Am I saying something really wrong?


No, I don't have a rational point-by-point blah blah blah. Your opinion about all of this is yours, and you are welcome to it. Doesn't bother me in the least. I said that because you are aggressive about your viewpoint, and seemingly obsessing over this "discussion".

I actually agree with some of your points, especially the one about needing to look at more than the last one hundred years. Yet somehow I don't feel the need to post the same kid-drawn graph over and over again. I bet you've posted that nearly two dozen times so far.
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:33 pm

Image
Kim's site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-c ... ssions.htm

into atmosphere naturally goes 771 GT of CO2 (439+332) vs 29 GT CO2 which was emitted by humans .
compare 771 natural CO2 vs 29 human contribution of CO2.


29 GT of CO2 going into atmosphere vs 771 natural CO2 makes for ~3.76% addition (29/771 * 100 = 3.76%)
of a trace gas making 0.0387% of the atmosphere.

How much addition do we create for the atmosphere?

0.0376 * 0.039% = 0.0014664%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Total human CO2 emission causing imbalance of the atmosphere = 0.0014664%
I am sure that natural variations (in sun activity + position of the planet relative to the sun, etc) change atmosphere more than 0.0014664% (humans).

The nature accounts for 99.9986% (100% - 0.0014664% = 99.9985336%)


So, 99.99% of atmosphere is changed only by nature. Human CO2 production adds only 0.0014664% .

2010-1959= 51 years.
389.78-315.98 = 73.8 ppm increase over 51 years.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/ ... an_mlo.txt


If humans are responsible for 3.76% of CO2 going into the atmosphere, then:
73.8 x 0.0376 = 2.77488

In 51 years we have contributed 2.77488ppm of CO2 vs 71.02512 ppm contributed by nature .

Or 2.77488/51 = 0.05 ppm per year on average.

Humans have contributed 0.05 ppm of CO2 per year on average. (2.77488/51)

The rest was done by nature.
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:42 pm

Who are you posting that for? You're talking to yourself.

Meds.
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby Alex123 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:47 pm

andre9999 wrote: Who are you posting that for?


Anyone who is interested in knowing the truth.

andre9999 wrote:
Meds.


Please don't attack the person.
If you can, refute the data.


How can humans cause climate change if we contribute only 0.0014664% to the atmosphere? The nature can easily outdo it in either way (up or down).


Even if humans have never appeared, the atmosphere would be 99.9986% the same.
I was not; I was; I am not; I do not care."
User avatar
Alex123
 
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: Extreme is the New Normal

Postby andre9999 » Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:55 pm

Alex123 wrote:Even if humans have never appeared, the atmosphere would be 99.9986% the same.[/b]


I enjoy that you call your viewpoint "the truth", yet you honestly believe that you're able to determine the atmospheric impact of humanity to .0001% precision.

Bravo.
User avatar
andre9999
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:04 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI, US

PreviousNext

Return to Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests