Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Methinkshe

Members
  • Posts

    5,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Methinkshe

  1. Where, in the following sentence (or, for that matter, in any sentence that I quoted from Ian Pliner's book) is it claimed that CO2 cannot cause a rise in temperature? "Hence the rise of CO2 in past climates is a response to warming, not the cause." I am not going to engage with you any further in discussions about the science that is relied upon to support AGW. I consider it to be a pointless exercise. The evidence available to all scientists is the same; ice cores, for instance, remain the same whether examined by a pro or anti AGWist. It is only how individual scientists use or extrapolate or interpret the evidence which differs from one camp to the other. Thus, the debate as far as this thread is concerned, comes down to faith; which interpretation do we choose to believe and why? Moreover, if we are desirous of discovering truth rather than preserving sacred cows, then honesty must be central to any debate. Opposing arguments should be given full consideration and not just rejected piecemeal and on dubious grounds such as miscomprehension due to non-contextual or fractured reading. It is all too easy to Google and find an argument or a graph or a peer-reviewed paper to back an opinion on either side of the debate. But post-justification of a pre-formed opinion does not really tackle the heart of the matter: i.e. what caused one's opinion to be hardened in the first instance? One could address the same question to those engaged in frontline climate research. Are they engaged in a search for truth or a means to reinforce a personal bias? Honesty and humility in the face of contradictory or alternative interpretations of evidence is essential to scientific progress. Both seem to be in short supply in the climate change debate.
  2. A nasty frost in the form of reality (concerning such stuff as unemployment and its consequences) comes and nips in the bud all those green shoots.
  3. I don't believe it was misrepresentation; however, if that is how you perceived it, then I apologise again. I acknowledge that if my comment gave rise to even a perception of misrepresentation, then I should, in future, refrain from such careless comments. Far too many articles, essays, etc. that I have read in various publications - on and offline, books, journals, diaries, biographies, personal experiences related to me - you name it (and none logged because I am driven by curiosity and not by a desire to prove a point, and therefore data-collection and referencing doesn't even enter my head) to ever be able to individually reference. Enough material, however, to arouse in me a deep suspicion of the system of peer review that currently operates. I do not deny that it has operated better in the past - I do believe it has. But I am more concerned with how it operates in the present. From all I have managed to gather, it doesn't currently operate too well. It was because of this suspicion about peer-review and also falsification of data, that when I read an article in the newspaper about falsification of data, instead of just consigning it to the dustbin that is my memory, I actually made a point of tracking down the article and posting it here. Likewise, when I stumbled upon an article that was critical of the system of peer-review that currently operates (especially in the climate change debate) I logged it and posted here instead of just adding it to my memory dustbin. From now on, I shall probably continue to log and reference such articles. But until now, I considered them only informative in a general knowledge sense rather than requiring of being logged so as to support a possible argument at a future date.
  4. I agree. Ditto. But one has to start somewhere......................!
  5. Yep. And the IMF also knows exactly how much is current bank solvency reliant on either government intervention (Asset Protection Scheme in the UK, for instance), changed accountancy rules (mark to model/ 'magination) and a totally irrational equity market.
  6. Ditto my take. However, it does seem strange to go for index-linked if deflation and continuing low interest rates is the expected outcome. I think a rate rise could possibly be justified on the grounds of a recovery (even if it is a false premise). Hence the continual talk of green shoots and especially a recovery in house prices - not to mention equating the rise in equity markets as evidence of a recovery. Although it seems to me that the performance of equity markets is built on nothing more than a follow-my-leader desire not to miss out on the rally, whatever its cause. What is said by those who dictate policy is important in terms of managing inflationary expectations, but what is done is instructive in terms of what is really believed will occur. At least, that's my take. But, like you, I am fully prepared to defer to those better qualified.
  7. You didn't; I am guilty of hyperbole. I apologise. However, the number of times on this thread that you have asked me for peer-reviewed papers does demonstrate that you place a great deal of confidence in the system of peer-review. I do not. Imo, it is open to abuse in the form of funding bias, vested interests, manipulation/ falsification/ omission of data, scare tactics (threat of losing employment) and many other external influences. The search for truth seems to be very low on the list when it comes to peer-review; the search for funds followed by security of job tenure seems to top the list.
  8. It would appear that not everyone agrees with the infallibility of peer-review that Snowflux espouses. 2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #3
  9. Interesting. More grist to the mill that the B o E is overstating deflationary dangers so as to lower inflationary expectations which present the real danger. As has been said before, it's not what is said but what is done that matters. Or, actions speak louder than words.......
  10. Be sure to check any exit penalties. Sometimes unforeseen relocation becomes essential (new job in different area, for instance) before the end of the fixed term, and early redemption penalties can be very large from what I remember reading in various financial advice columns over the years.
  11. I see little point in arguing the science with you. No refutation by any number of eminent scientists is going to shift your opinion. Historical evidence isn't going to shift your opinion. Nothing is. You are now so indoctrinated, and the notion of AGW is so firmly lodged in your consciousness that even if, in ten years time, it snowed in England throughout the summer, and average global temperatures fell by 5 degrees C, you'd still say that this was due to AGW. The better tack to take is the one that Injin is taking - the "so what" approach. Edited for typo.
  12. I'm guessing that this is a paid for advertising campaign dressed up as impartial reporting. Advertising Standards, anyone?
  13. Even though the crucial Chapter 5 of IPCC AR4 (Humans Responsible for Climate Change) was based on the opinions of just five independent scientists? And despite the IPCC reliance on the notorious (some would say deliberately fraudulent) "hockey stick graph" that Nature published uncritically and without checking Mann's data? (So much for peer-review). Pliner has not been shown to be "misleading" (if you are referring to Snowflux's facile assessment of the excerpt re ice-cores that I posted.) What IS misleading is Snowflux's refusal to read the WHOLE and yet have the presumption to pronounce on Pliner's integrity. Are you asking whether I believe that increased atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in global temperature? If so, the answer is, no. Edited for typo.
  14. So where one stands on the AGW debate is a matter of faith, then, and not of the science and/or evidence which is equally available to both sides but differently interpreted by both sides. Furthermore, what one chooses to believe or discard when presented with new evidence/research/experimentational results, is based purely on one's pre-conception and faith in that pre-conception. For instance, when temperatures stopped rising, Manmade Global Warming was changed to Anthropogenic Climate Change so as to circumvent that little difficulty of evidence undermining the theory. So that now, whether the temperature rises or falls, it is still claimed by AGWists that it is evidence of AGW. In other words, the pre-conception/theory determines the acceptability of the evidence rather than the evidence shaping the theory. Which is why I said in an earlier post that the heart of this debate has less to do with the underlying science than with the reasons each of us has to believe in the pro or anti arguments. Why, for instance, are you convinced by the IPCC and I am convinced by Ian Pliner?
  15. Why is it binding on any of us? The cost to western nations is off the scale of sensible prophylactic spending against an imaginary ill, and the cost to third world countries will be millions upon millions of lives; meanwhile, the use of agricultural land for biofuels is already bringing starvation to millions, doubling the cost of cereals in a year. (UNFAO 2008). The cure of this imaginary ill is already far worse than the disease - raised atmospheric CO2 levels - which, by all accounts, will only increase plant growth and help the poor through increased crops/acre.
  16. No. By isolating one small paragraph just to demonstrate one very small part of one topic - ice -which gets 50 pages in the book, I have already elicited from you a response that Pliner is misleading in his statements. This is far from the truth and, unless I am prepared to sit and type 50 pages (which I am not - copyright forbids apart from anything else) I will only elicit from you more statements unjustly damning Pliner. The arguments he puts forward are comprehensive, detailed and fully-referenced. They are not amenable to being reduced to soundbites. You will have to read the book for yourself if you want fully to understand his arguments. Or are you concerned that your faith in AGW could be undermined by reading a book of collected, comprehensive, scientific arguments against AGW, fully referenced (peer-reviwed papers no less - I know how important that is to you) and very much grounded in historical evidence as opposed to hung on a sky-hook of dubious computer modelling of future events? Edit: missing word "to".
  17. Ian Pliner's book, Heaven and Earth, is nearly 500 pages long. This short excerpt (barely half a page) is hardly representative of his whole argument - it is just one very small factor that he takes into account when drawing a conclusion. Why don't you read the book? Then you will understand Pliner's argument as a whole rather than attempting to refute his argument on the basis of one very small excerpt that I extracted almost at random - so numerous are the scientific arguments against AGW that he cites.
  18. Tell you what, why don't you read the book for yourself? I could sit here and type out reams of reasons Plimer gives why the science on which AGW relies is either missing or wrong, but it would be much better if you read it for yourself. Apart from anything else, it took me ages to type that last excerpt with all the references, and I don't fancy doing that again! After all, both you and I are reliant on the research of others and the conclusions that they draw for a foundation on which to base our own opinions, so both of us can only quote the work of others. So it's not as though we are bringing anything original to the debate - we're both just repeating what others have theorised. Thus, I don't see much point in my regurgitating Plimer's arguments when what is actually at the heart of the debate is the reason for our personal belief in either the pro or anti AGW camp.
  19. Are you referring to this post of mine: I think you have misread or misunderstood what I was saying. I am simply pointing out that even IF (maybe it will, maybe it won't) AGW were to be "disproven and discredited", it would be difficult to expunge it from the collective consciousness. I used "by no means proven" in a compeletely different context: You cannot do a lucky dip and extract phrases from different posts and then conflate the subjects to which they refer. This bit, for starters: the rise of CO2 in past climates is a response to warming, not the cause. "There was a suggestion from a study of the Vostok (Antarctica) ice core that CO2 had forced climate changes throughout the past ice ages. However, this has been challenged because of substantial mismatches. These mismatches were corrected using a model that incorporates variations of climate in the source regions for water vapour. (Caffey, K.M. and Vimeux, F.2001: Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction. Nature 412: 523-527. Measurements of CO2, methane and temperature in ice cores show a sawtooth pattern. (Dahl-Jensen, D.K., Mosegaard, K, Gundestrup, N, Clow, G.D.,Johnsen, S.J., Hansen, A.W, and Balling, N. 1998: Past temperatures from the Greenland ice sheet. Science 282: 268-271) At the scale of measurement, it looked as if there was a close correlation between temperature and CO2. (Mudelsee, M. 2001: Phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 la. Quarterly Science Review 22: 583-589. Furthermore, temperature rose and then suddenly declined. There was no "tipping-point" and the temperature-CO2 plots clearly showed that the rise of temperature was stopped by something other than CO2. (Wunsch, C. 2003: Greenland-Antarctic phase relations and millennial time-scale climate fluctuations in the Greenland ice-cores. Quarterly Science Review 22: 1631-1646.). To analyse thousands of metres of ice-core chemically is a difficult, costly, slow process. Some early sampling was using layers separated by 800 years of snow deposition. (Barnola, J.M., Pimienta, P., Raynaud, D.and Korotkevich, Y.S. 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice-core; a re-examination on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus B 43:83-90. This missed a key feature of the core. It was only with later, far more detailed studies of ice cores that another story emerged. New high resolution studies over the last 450,000 years of Vostok core show that at all times of cold to warm transitions, temperature rise is follwed by a rise in CO2 some 800 years later. (Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature cchanges across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.) Hence the rise of CO2 in past climates is a response to warming, not the cause." Heaven and Earth p 402. Ian Plimer.
  20. Because people like andykn keep coming up with stuff like this:
  21. Global warming and a tale of two planets Unfortunately, the graph referred to does not appear online although it is in my Sunday Telegraph hard copy. In any event, the point I wish to demonstrate is that your claim that temperature rises follow increased CO2 is by no means proven - there is still a lot of dissent out there.
  22. Yes, I think we do need government - but at a very minimal level. Along the lines of a central body that collects taxes so as to provide those communally desirable and expensive things such as administration of law (together with an awful lot less making of law) national defence, transport and energy infrastructures, and so on and so forth. If such could be achieved under a different nomenclature than "government" then I'd be happy to listen to any such proposal.
  23. All the best for your presentation - I shall be thinking of you in the coming weeks. It is reassuring to know that you are in a position to influence the debate. Glad to hear that you have been provided with additional ammo.
  24. Imposed so-called altruism on threat of penalty - just how all totalitarian states work. For the good of the collective, the next generation, the old, the sick, the young, the single-mother, the whatever happens to engage the mind of the populace at the time, YOU WILL DO THIS!
  25. That's the rational response. The case for AGW has been disseminated amongst the general public almost exclusively via an appeal to emotionalism - witness Al Gore's wretchedly inaccurate "An Inconvenient Truth." Whip up an irrational fear and then offer the equally irrational antidote.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.