|
|
#34
08-17-2007, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Dr Felix, PhD...School Is In Session
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ok, it increases. That would mean that the overall moisture content of the air increases, then? [/ QUOTE ] perhaps you should just get to your point. [/ QUOTE ] I know where he's going, and it's an interesting discussion. No harm in playing along. 
|
|
#36
08-17-2007, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 1. He looks like kind of silly 2. [ QUOTE ] In the modern world, science and society often interact in a perverse way. We live in a technological society, and technology causes political problems. The politicians and the public expect science to provide answers to the problems. Scientific experts are paid and encouraged to provide answers. The public does not have much use for a scientist who says, “Sorry, but we don’t know”. The public prefers to listen to scientists who give confident answers to questions and make confident predictions of what will happen as a result of human activities. So it happens that the experts who talk publicly about politically contentious questions tend to speak more clearly than they think. [/ QUOTE ] Anyone who's actually read the IPCC report (which is very few of the deniers), will realize that it's a non contentious document based on error ranges and levels of confidence. There are no: "this is what's going to happen". There are terms like "likely", "more likely than not", "very likely", representing percentage ranges of possible outcomes. There is a quantification of level of understanding with associated (very generous) error intervals. It is within these bounds that the comments about likely warming and likely causes are made, and I find them rigorous. So this clown is just doing some political spin. And what's up with this statment? [ QUOTE ] First, if the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is allowed to continue, shall we arrive at a climate similar to the climate of six thousand years ago when the Sahara was wet? Second, if we could choose between the climate of today with a dry Sahara and the climate of six thousand years ago with a wet Sahara, should we prefer the climate of today? My second heresy answers yes to the first question and no to the second. [/ QUOTE ] In the first he seems to be agreeing that carbon dioxide will warm the atmosphere. In the second, he presents a false scenario - the indications are that global warming will intensify desertification in the Saharan region, NOT make it wet. So it's an irrelevant choice. [/ QUOTE ] LOL, this "clown" is a genius of the first order. [/ QUOTE ] QFT Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong.
|
|
#37
08-17-2007, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Global Warming Sheep
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I know the answer. I'm simply trying to see if you know the answers. [/ QUOTE ] I remmber playing this game as a child.... Two people going in circles wasting a lot of time. Wouldn't it just be easier to state your point? Instead of playing this game? [/ QUOTE ] Actually it is much easier to play the game. All you need to do is type the warmest global year to answer one question. That is much less effort than this dialogue. The fact that I'm now my fourth post in and you still refuse to answer the questions should be rather telling of your intent. I will ask one more time. Question #1: What year is warmer on the global scale: A) 1998 B) 1934 There, I've made it super easy for you. All you need to do is press one key to answer the question. It's either A or B. The next question is a test to see how well you understand the situation. Question #2: What exactly when wrong in the analysis of the most recent dataset? It's a simple question and the correct answer can be given in one easy sentence. Again, the answers to both questions are freely available on the web. The answers you give will be good indicators of your competence and honesty as there is only one simple answer to each question.
|
|
#38
08-17-2007, 07:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become.
|
|
#39
08-17-2007, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become. [/ QUOTE ] Wow that is a slanted restatement of the quoted paragraph. Scrutiny should increase the closer we get to policy decision and investment. In any semi-open political system contention and lobbying will also increase.
|
|
#40
08-17-2007, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Freeman Dyson, Global Warming Heretic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Maybe I'm wrong but as the politicians in the U.S. get closer to actually implementing policy regarding man made global warming, the scrutiny the models are receiving seems to have increased a great deal. Just my perception could be wrong. [/ QUOTE ] No you are correct. NYT's Andy Revkin talked about how deniers typically get worse and worse as the odds turns against them. The closer they are to defeat the larger the lies will become. [/ QUOTE ] Wow that is a slanted restatement of the quoted paragraph. Scrutiny should increase the closer we get to policy decision and investment. In any semi-open political system contention and lobbying will also increase. [/ QUOTE ] I agree scrutiny should increase. However, the vast majority of what makes it to mainstream media is not legitimate scrutiny. Recent claims that NASA was hit by a Y2K bug or that the correction to the most recent dataset debunks global warming is anything but constructive scrutiny. Serious scrutiny (which does exist) rarely makes it into headlines or even this forum.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
