He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK - hopefully everyone has cooled down a bit, and since so many people have contacted me asking to be able to continue the discussion, I am re-opening this thread!

Please, everyone, stick to the point, and if you see anyone going wild - as someone did recently, ignore him but report him! Please do not resort to attacking people rather than their ideas.

I may be biassed (who isn't), but I feel that the pro-CAGW side attracts some people for whom this cause has become a religion. For them any attack is an attack on a sacred belief.

I have been through this issue before, so it is up to others to explore this further, but I hope even the 'believers' in CAGW will recognise that if this concept is bogus, then it should be exposed.

David
It's pretty clear that this cause is a religion for both sides, neither side is objective and both sides have insulted the other. In fact I have been insulted personally for being pro-AGW and you didn't do anything about it. I think you are a nice guy but I think you need to be extremely aware of your bias when moderating on this topic!
 
It's pretty clear that this cause is a religion for both sides, neither side is objective and both sides have insulted the other. In fact I have been insulted personally for being pro-AGW and you didn't do anything about it. I think you are a nice guy but I think you need to be extremely aware of your bias when moderating on this topic!
Yes, except that - speaking personally - I am passionate that people are not fed hogwash by a science establishment that has become obsessed with power and control, rather than truth.

David
 
D

Diogenes

It is pointless trying to have a sensible discussion here when the moderation is so biassed.

I understand PTEHA has now been banned permanently.

I have asked for my own account to be closed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, except that - speaking personally - I am passionate that people are not fed hogwash by a science establishment that has become obsessed with power and control, rather than truth.

David
I would like to say that PTEHA's treatment here has been nothing short of scandalous. You and Alex should be ashamed of yourselves.

I know he was contacted by PTEHA, but was ignored. I have experience of this myself when I tried to let him know about the Jurgen Ziewe thread.

It is so ironic that Enrique seems obsessed with oppressive regimes when Skeptiko exhibits exactly the type of tactics that one would expect from such organisations.

I am not for anyone being banned, I like to think that there is no one I couldn't contact and be civil with here. No exceptions.

I don't care if I get banned for this post. As much as I enjoy this forum and many people on it, it has revealed itself to be as biased as any 'skeptics' that Alex has interviewed.

Disgusted of Milton Keynes. :( :)

Steve
 
Hey, Steve,
I wonder why you mention me, as if I were an administrator of this forum. From what I know, PTEHA was banned for going on trolling spree, having reported over 100 posts, including those of Alex, not for the content of his interventions. By the way, I'n not obssessed about anything, it's the subject I have been studying for 40 years. It's like saying that a biology professor is "obsessed" with biology.To Insinuate that somebody is "obsessed" with something has despective connotations, so, I don't think you really mean it. :)
I don't think anybody will ban you on this forum, you are an important part of the gang :D
 
This thread is not accessible from the main page of the forum. Podcast 310 isn't there.
What has happened is that the thread is no longer 'pinned' in place as a sticky, The first several threads have a little red pin icon. Further down the page (and on subsequent pages) are all the ordinary unpinned threads, in order of most recent posting,
 
Hey, Steve,
I wonder why you mention me, as if I were an administrator of this forum. From what I know, PTEHA was banned for going on trolling spree, having reported over 100 posts, including those of Alex, not for the content of his interventions. By the way, I'n not obssessed about anything, it's the subject I have been studying for 40 years. It's like saying that a biology professor is "obsessed" with biology.To Insinuate that somebody is "obsessed" with something has despective connotations, so, I don't think you really mean it. :)
I don't think anybody will ban you on this forum, you are an important part of the gang :D
Hi Enrique

I am intrigued how you know what PTEHA was banned for. Could it be because you are pally with the moderator? ;)

It's my opinion that you seem to be obsessed by certain things, maybe I'm wrong, I'm not an expert on very much. But that's ok being obsessed, and it's ok with me having an opinion that you disagree with. When we can all learn not to get upset we'll be getting somewhere. I'm just as likely to get carried away, being Scots, it is part of my
curriculum for this life, I'm trying hard. :)

If anyone should be asked to calm it down it should be you. ;) As I've said I wouldn't be banning anyone, but you do have a way of firing people up. I don't think I'm known as a particularly fiery type guy, but I got wound up by you in another thread. Can you accept that may be true? Some examples of how you've responded:

how your real ugly, malignant, hate-filled self, and start spewing (rather, excreting) insults. I won't bother responding to your virtual excretions, you walking, talking rectum. I know what you are, you agitprop monger:
Apparently, it didn't work with you. I'm done talking to you, pal. Go f... yourself.
I was once given a warning and my post was removed by responding to one of your posts as a Scotsman should. (By AP;))

I genuinely think these responses are funny, even if I wouldn't encourage them;)

Yet Pteha gets a week long ban for a first offence for saying something 'offensive' about IQs ? No wonder he went off on one! :eek::)

I'm not having a go at you, I'm having a go at the moderators.

The whole point of this is that if you're going to ban people who you 'dislike' or vehemently disagree with, but who argue their case with as much passion as possible but following all the rules then the forum is just another example of the dogma that Alex denounces.
 
Last edited:
Hi Enrique

I am intrigued how you know what PTEHA was banned for. Could it be because you are pally with the moderator? ;)

It's my opinion that you seem to be obsessed by certain things, maybe I'm wrong, I'm not an expert on very much. But that's ok being obsessed, and it's ok with me having an opinion that you disagree with. When we can all learn not to get upset we'll be getting somewhere. I'm just as likely to get carried away, being Scots, it is part of my
curriculum for this life, I'm trying hard. :)

If anyone should be asked to calm it down it should be you. ;) As I've said I wouldn't be banning anyone, but you do have a way of firing people up. I don't think I'm known as a particularly fiery type guy, but I got wound up by you in another thread. Can you accept that may be true? Some examples of how you've responded:






I was once given a warning and my post was removed by responding to one of your posts as a Scotsman should. (By AP;))

I genuinely think these responses are funny, even if I wouldn't encourage them;)

Yet Pteha gets a week long ban for a first offence for saying something 'offensive' about IQs ? No wonder he went off on one! :eek::)

I'm not having a go at you, I'm having a go at the moderators.

The whole point of this is that if you're going to ban people who you 'dislike' or disagree vehemently with, but argue their case with as much passion as is possible but following all the rules then the forum is just another example of the dogma that Alex rails against.
1) No, I'm not "pally" with the administrators
2) You don't realize is that what you are doing is potently unfair: you take exerts of what I say RESPONDING to insulting comments directed to me without any provocation. Like you cut off the part of the sentence where it says "I was trying to be friendly with you, apparently, it didn't work. " Anybody who is curious can follow the thread and see it for themselves.
3) Yes, people very often tend to respond in a hostile manner to strong opinions that don't conform with their worldview. I am in a debate to argue vigorously, not to make friends, although I try to be friendly, all the way up to the first ad hominem thrown at me, then, it's free for all.
And no, strong views are not obsessions, if you ca provide data and coherent arguments to support them. You yourself have strong views, I wouldn't call them obsessions.
I don't mind people having the views that are diametrically opposing to mine, as long as they are able to abstain from direct ad hominems. I have different views from yours, but I know you are a noble and kind person, so, in my book, I can talk to you about anything, without fear of losing mutual respect. Remember, virtual interactions are essentially unnatural, there is no direct human communication involved, so, we don't se a human behind the post, so we tend to attack the idea, so much the person behind it. If we argued, say, in a pub, meaning, in a natural human environment, it would be easier to see a real human behind the idea, interact with him, even buy him a round or two.... :D The way we all do in real life. (Like, if you ever drag your ass to Madrid, I'll buy you a pint or three :D ) We all have friends who don't think like us, and we still love them, of course. Internet changed all these natural dynamics of human interactions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, except that - speaking personally - I am passionate that people are not fed hogwash by a science establishment that has become obsessed with power and control, rather than truth.

David
What you believe is hogwash, like I said on this subject it's difficult for you I moderate when you are clearly so skeptical. Your response to me confirms you don't even want to accept you have bias and that it might be an issue. Has Phetha actually been banned? If that's the case I think an explanation of why he has should be said, and it needs explaining why Enrique hasn't as the conversation was two way. If you look at some of the things he's said they're pretty out of order.
 
1) No, I'm not "pally" with the administrators
So how do you know? Are you pally with a pal of the moderator? Is this known to everyone, it's unlikely that Pteha kept you up to date on the proceedings.


2) You don't realize is that what you are doing is potently unfair: you take exerts of what I say RESPONDING to insulting comments directed to me without any provocation. Like you cut off the part of the sentence where it says "I was trying to be friendly with you, apparently, it didn't work. " Anybody who is curious can follow the thread and see it for themselves.
Yes, that's true. But I was only highlighting the worst type of example, I'm afraid that you won. :) My guess is that anyone on the pro AGW side making such insults would have been kicked out as quick as a moderator could fire up their computer. Laird is hardly someone who would be likely to get fired up. He simply refused to agree.

Diogenes was accused of trolling by Michael. Seriously ?

Pteha was arguing more or less alone against a bunch of people who were posting, and if Rupert is right, against a wall of opponents that made up a wall of psychic negativity! :) It was clear that to me, that he and you were engaging in a policy of M.A.D - and as a Russian I know that you must recognise the acronym. :eek:

I would buy you a Smirnoff vodka or three also. In fact I've got a brother in law who lives just outside Madrid (Alcala) who's a lawyer, so I do occasionally get to visit. I might take you up on that offer sometime. Although I don't really drink ;;/?

(Smirnoff's probably made in China or Korea nowadays)
 
So how do you know? Are you pally with a pal of the moderator? Is this known to everyone, it's unlikely that Pteha kept you up to date on the proceedings.




Yes, that's true. But I was only highlighting the worst type of example, I'm afraid that you won. :) My guess is that anyone on the pro AGW side stating such insults would have been kicked out as quick as a moderator could fire up their computer. Laird is hardly someone who would be likely to get fired up. He simply refused to agree.

Diogenes was accused of trolling by Michael. Seriously ?

Pteha was arguing more or less alone against a bunch of people who were posting, and if Rupert is right, against a wall of opponents that made up a wall of psychic negativity! :) It was clear that to me, that he and you were engaging in a policy of M.A.D - and as a Russian I know that you must recognise the acronym. :eek:

I would buy you a Smirnoff vodka or three also. In fact I've got a brother in law who lives just outside Madrid (Alcala) who's a lawyer, so I do occasionally get to visit. I might take you up on that offer sometime. Although I don't really drink ;;/?
Alcala de Henares??? NO f..... way... My wife is from Alcala. :D :D :D I don't drink myself, so, alcohol free beer is it is. BTW, I'm a Spaniard, just was born in the USSR, my parents were kidnapped by Stalins' soldiers during the Civil War. Weird story...Anyway, I don't think that political discussions on this forum are very productive: we all hold different views, and some of us feel very strong about them. I hate arguing with people I like. It's better to concentrate on what unites us here. Some of us have stuck with this forum for years, it would be a shame to hold animosities toward each other.
 
At first, I felt a little bad that PTEHA got banned as I expected maybe a verbal correction first, but when he came back it was... PTEHA unleashed! I think he is/was a professional troll doing this either for money or out of some sort of narcissistic messiah complex. I think he confirmed that himself:

I am very intelligent and if I wanted to I could have been a scientist in various fields. The details don't matter, the only thing that matters today is am I right or wrong when I point out the various errors and distortions made by less intelligent people, and when I point others to the ecredible and valid science on climate science that exists, or not. I have over 17 years experience arguing about politics and religion on internet forums. I have the scars to prove it. I am an expet in this field, in fact I was a early explorer into the cyber world of social media. I have learnt a lot and can see what goes on here and why, and what happens on WUWT and why, and all the garbage being spewed on newspaper comments sections. The topic is irrelevant, people's beliefs are irrelevant the outcome is the same...
In a previous post (don't have time to go find it now) he also said that he posted here not to convince anyone participating, but for those who read this thread and don't comment - in other words the lurkers or search results.

There are two ways to "win" on an internet forum: engage in rational discourse in a polite respectful humble manner, or the second option is create drama, stir emotions, get people talking about yourself or exchanging insults instead of talking about the issues, dominate the thread with many many long posts, frame-shift your way out of actual point by point debates, ad hominem attack, ridicule, associate opposition with super-villains (i.e. Hitler) appeal to popularity by creating the perception of consensus, appeal to authority, post lots of links without any exposition on them, divide forum members against one another and create dissension and discontent within the forum. PTEHA employed all of the latter tactics.

If PTEHA really is what he claims - an expert in this field of internet communication with 17 years of experience - then he knows this well. He knows that lurkers outnumber participants 10 to 1 or 100 to 1 and liftetime page views might be in the thousands, and the real value of engaging here from a mass mind control standpoint is to water down search results or derail the thread or get the thread shut down or fill it with so much drama and crap that no one wants to wade through it all to actually engage in the debate. So I would say he really did a fine job of accomplishing his goals here.

Regarding the comment that I reported, PTEHA is the only forum member I've ever reported for behavior because it seemed obvious to me he was being a troll and the post that I flagged added nothing to the discussion and it suggested that we be locked up for lowering the IQ here. Although I knew he wasn't serious (I hope), the escalating emotional level of his rhetoric along with a fair bit of narcissist non-sense really derailed this thread. I also felt more inclined to flag a suggestion for locking us up since he was defending the author who advocated arrest of deniers and even the death penalty.

Evidence of Messiah complex and apocalyptic prophesy:

I am here to TEACH and SHOW and TELL. That's it. The really wise will heed what I say and how I say it here .... and it will serve them well to learn from me. That's not me ego talking, it is just the way it is. I have confidence NOT arrogance. I know that for certain, because I know me, who I am and what I will and won't stand for. My principles are very sound.

"All you need is to offer up the truth; that is scary enough. The truth has been published extensively in the literature, and is quite straight-forward."

"But you are right that the last 25 years of climate science has got a lot wrong and the "predictions, forecasts, suggestions of potential impacts and when" are not totally accurate or correct. Mind you though they never claimed perfection nor 100% certainty either. The unfortunate aspect this this is that you and many others like the page referenced have it substantially back to front. The impacts are looking more severe and coming much sooner than previously thought and reported."

"I am not going to apologise for being intelligent or for knowing what I already know and can prove, have proven to myself adequately and beyond a reasonable doubt. That is NOT "certainty" either.

"The simple truth is that if one wishes to know what AGW/CC is all about, then they have no other rational choice than to listen to the experts...one must stop listening to pseudo experts in the media, politics, think tanks, blogs and internet discussion forums."

"The consensus is self-evident. It always has been. The consensus on an ~8 billion years old Universe is likewise self-evident not matter how many young earth Christians for a 8,000 year old universe/earth are surveyed by peer-reviewed research papers. They are still all outliers, deniers and skeptics of the scientific consensus. It is what it is." (BTW, I believe the current estimate on universe age is almost 14 billion years.)

"In this case, the self-evident truth is that there is a glaringly obvious, manifest, undeniable scientific consensus regarding AGW/CC and the reason for this is self-evident. One only needs to go and look. :)"
Shove that where the sun don't shine Hurmanetar. You are off my xmas list forever.
Not even a lump of coal for me? :D

Regarding an old post of NOAA graphs plus RSS troposphere graphs @
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...nce-science-proved-him-wrong-310.3171/page-21

There's a reason why trained scientists...
which he admits he is not... he is an expert in the field of social media: forums, comment sections, etc.

do science - they are good at it and generally do not make basic mistakes. Contrary to the cynicism being expressed and the wrong conclusions being asserted in that prior post, the NOAA graphs were for March only, and mainly USA data not global. USA land temp trends were being compared to global trends - that just doesn't work - it's how do you say it? How about it is plum wrong to try and compare the two? meanwhile the poster was trying to allude to his opinions that the trend from 1998 2016 was down on the historical trend. again he was wrong - in the period from 1998 to 2016 the warming trend was 2.57 greater than the avg mean from 1880 as shown in the other graph. And this is only one thing that the poster does not comprehend about the graphs and other info posted he has unknowingly mis-represented here. That is situation normal for Blogs. That's why we pay scientists to do professional work. Listening to them might help. I know that is such an extreme view for some to swallow, but it is actually the truth of it. Rank amateurs have no business getting involved in climate science without adequate training and the basic mental equipment necessary for the work.
Try https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201603
see http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...aa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...significant-or-paused-or-what/comment-page-2/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/01/2015-temperatures/ ......... if you wish. You don't have to. Make your own choices and trust your own instincts. Not my problem. Facts is if some people here actually did know what they were talking about they'd be embarrassed by what they say here. Being consistently wrong about the facts isn't a claim to fame or for fawning kudos imo. Your mileage may vary of course, no need to agree with me. I could also address the RSS graphs but there's no point because the wise can work it out for themselves anyway.
I didn't get this info from someone's blog. I just went to the NOAA website and plotted some charts. The satellite data (which he didn't comment on) came from a report by a proponent of AGW/CC - not a denier. Looking at year-to-year vs March-only doesn't change the trends much. Here are plots for the year (April to March) instead of March only. Going by the year actually gave me a negative trend from 1998 to present in America.








The satellite data doesn't show as much warming. It shows that previous IPCC predictions failed to pan out.




...there is not much doubt that the rate of warming since the late 1990’s is less than that predicted by most of the IPCC AR5 simulations of historical climate. This can be seen in the RSS data, as well as most other temperature datasets....In this figure, the thick black line is from a climate data record derived from microwave sounding satellite (MSU and AMSU ) measurements. Each of the thin light blue lines represents the temperature anomaly time series for the same atmospheric layer from one of 33 IPCC climate model simulations that I have analyzed. I have adjusted each individual time series so that its average is 0.0 for the 1979-1988 period. This has no effect on the trend of each line, but it does make it easier to see long term changes in the plot. The dips in the simulated model temperatures in 1983 and late 1991 are due to the eruptions of El Chichón and Mt. Pinatubo. These eruptions spewed enough volcanic ash into the stratosphere to block part of the incoming sunlight and cool Earth’s surface and troposphere. The cooling can easily be seen in the measured satellite data in 1992-1993. The cooling event in 1983 happened by chance at more or less the same time as an El Niño event in 1983-84, making it harder to see....
in the period from 1998 to 2016 the warming trend was 2.57 greater than the avg mean from 1880 as shown in the other graph.
This statement could be a little misleading... "2.57x greater warming trend! oh my gawd!" I mean... if the trends were .000001 to .00001 we could say it's 10x greater! The trends aren't as small as my hyperbolic example, but are they large enough to be concerned about? The graph from NOAA above shows trend of .07 C per decade for the period starting 1880. The graph for 1998 to present shows a trend of .15 C per decade. 0.15/0.07 = 2.14 (not sure how you arrived at 2.57). And the trend for North America was negative. Either way... these are fairly small trends - especially when considering the way the data from land/sea measurements is gathered and processed. The satellite data here doesn't show the same strength of trend.
 
Last edited:
There are two ways to "win" on an internet forum: engage in rational discourse in a polite respectful humble manner, or the second option is create drama, stir emotions, get people talking about yourself or exchanging insults instead of talking about the issues, dominate the thread with many many long posts, frame-shift your way out of actual point by point debates, ad hominem attack, ridicule, associate opposition with super-villains (i.e. Hitler) appeal to popularity by creating the perception of consensus, appeal to authority, post lots of links without any exposition on them, divide forum members against one another and create dissension and discontent within the forum. PTEHA employed all of the latter tactics.
Why do you think this is all about winning arguments on an internet forum? This should have been a discussion about Climate Change. There is no winning this. Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, there is a very nasty drought here in California. Exactly how the heck do you win against that?

PTEHA was no troll or trolling.
 
D

Diogenes

Why was PTEHA banned permanently?
First, I'll explain that I've asked David Bailey twice to cancel my account, and he hasn't done so. In fact, he says he doesn't know how to cancel someone's account, except by banning them. So maybe PTEHA asked to have his account cancelled? I don't think so, though.

Anyhow, the other side of that coin is that it looks as though the only way to get my account cancelled is to get myself banned.

So, as a first attempt, I'll hazard a guess that - at bottom - the fact that PTEHA was banned permanently has quite a lot to do with his criticisms of the way the owner of this site went about the interview we're meant to be discussing here, and also the fact that the moderator views one side of the argument as "hogwash" and is passionate to prevent it being communicated. He makes no bones about that. So why wouldn't he want to ban someone who knew what he was talking about, given that that person supported the side of the argument the moderator was keen to suppress?

Certainly it can't be because of ad hominem attacks, because people on the side of the argument favoured by the moderator are still here, despite having indulged in them. And in fact they are still indulging in them.

While I'm here, I may as well say that I don't understand what essentially political conspiracy theories have to do with the declared aims of this site. Or why adherence to conspiracy theories should be incorporated in the "party line". Or why the site's supposed principles of critically examining the evidence should be thrown out of the window just because a conspiracy theory is under discussion. Frankly, I think that kind of thing just makes the people concerned look ridiculous, and tends to make the more worthwhile causes associated with the site look ridiculous too.

Hopefully that will be enough to get me banned, given the current atmosphere here. :D
 
What you believe is hogwash, like I said on this subject it's difficult for you I moderate when you are clearly so skeptical. Your response to me confirms you don't even want to accept you have bias and that it might be an issue. Has Phetha actually been banned? If that's the case I think an explanation of why he has should be said, and it needs explaining why Enrique hasn't as the conversation was two way. If you look at some of the things he's said they're pretty out of order.
PETHA has indeed been banned. On Saturday night, be reported over 100 posts by various people including two that referred to Alex! It took me considerable time just to process them all. I also had a number of complaints from other members of this forum. PETHA was not banned for his opinions.

You think people who are against CAGW are deluded or even in the pay of big oil. I guess I have made the comparison with the scientific treatment of ψ enough already, so let me give you another interesting example of the corruption of science. A few weeks ago, a report was released in the UK reducing the safe limits for drinking alcohol. The impression was given that even a small consumption of alcohol incurred some danger, and that cancer was a particularly high profile risk.

In the newspaper stories about this issue a book title appeared:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Good-News-...1680791&sr=8-1&keywords=good+news+about+booze

Despite its title, much of this book is somewhat technical,and it goes through the statistics about the medical effects of alcohol, collected over many years. The book meticulously quotes the research papers on which it is based. On the basis of these statistics, it paints a vastly different picture of the effect of drinking alcohol. People drinking large amounts, are obviously putting themselves at great risk of a variety of medical problems, but in fact those drinking moderately - even those drinking rather more than the old safe drinking limits - actually live longer and suffer less disease than teetotallers, or (obviously) those who veer towards excess.

The author explains the stark contrast between the experimental facts and what has been told to the public by pointing out that many of those responsible for the final advice had been GP's earlier in their career, and had seen too many people who had become alcoholics.

However, it is surely reasonable to ask if it is right to feed the public a fantastic distortion of what the science actually says, because someone decided it would be better for them to be fed lies! Furthermore, I would hazard a guess that those who would take notice of the new advice, and maybe stop drinking, would be exactly the ones who would drink moderately and reap the benefits that the evidence shows this confers. It is really worth reading this book and comparing it with the public advice given out in Britain.

This is an interesting, but probably well meaning bit of scientific deception, but it illustrates the way in which those at the top of large scientific organisations see fit to twist the truth as they see fit. It is also easy to see that after a while scientists may feel locked into a lie because they can't explain what evidence they ever had to justify their original advice.

Most science is now organised on a very hierarchical basis, and control is exerted on potential mavericks using the peer review system, and the grant system.

Lot's of people have speculated over the origins of CAGW, I have heard it suggested that it arose out of a drive by the nuclear industry to promote its power stations. Another possibility is that it arose as a way to sell expensive electricity rather than cheap electricity - soak the poor to increase the wealth of big business. It may have been done - at least in part - to deflect the Green movement from things that really mattered.

I know you think we are just a group of people who know nothing about science, so here is a Nobel Prizewinner in physics espousing similar views:


http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel...ver-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever

Please, please listen to this speech - it is very clear and impressive.

Martin, Hurmanetar, and others - please save this link - it is the best I have discovered.

(He also resigned from the American Physical Society because of their championing CAGW without indicating the level of dissent on this subject).

Freeman Dyson - another revered physicist - has expressed similar views. It is noticeable that both of these men are retired, and thus beyond the reach of the sanctions that can normally be applied to those who step out of line on such issues.

There seem to be a whole set of scientific issues of this type, where either a mistake was made and subsequently covered up, or a deliberate bias was introduced for one reason or another. Alex didn't come up with his book title for no reason.

David
 
Last edited:
Why do you think this is all about winning arguments on an Internet forum?
Power is all about affecting public perception and belief. The Internet now takes the place of the church and the town square where ideas are exchanged and popular consensus is reached. Popular consensus is the base of support for the exercising of power.

This has long been known and written about... Ender's Game written in the 80's foresaw the importance of Internet debate in relation to world power with the kid geniuses under pseudonyms "Locke" and "Demosthenes" teaming up to control discourse on the nets leading them to eventually rule the world.

This should have been a discussion about Climate Change.
Perhaps you'd care to comment on the graphs above? What do you think about IPCC climate models failing on the high side to track with measured values? Do you feel that the NOAA land based measured temperature increase of .07 C / decade is real or exaggerated by data processing? Do you feel that we can rely on the accuracy of global temp estimates going all the way back to 1880? If real, do you think it is significant and dangerous or just part of natural fluctuations in the earth's climate?

Glaciers are melting,
That may be but aren't they always growing or receding naturally? I mean we see many glacial valleys and lakes that were filled with ice thousands of years ago. We warmed up quite a bit since then and man obviously didn't cause that warming.

sea levels are rising,
As I mentioned earlier in this thread the estimated rate is extremely small on the order of a few millimeters per year and the paper that reported this said the accuracy is suspect being measured from tidal measurements and bouys. The land and shore are always shifting so it is really hard to say how much the ocean is actually rising if at all.

there is a very nasty drought here in California.
Part of that could be natural climate cycles. Part of that could be due to geoengineering (cloud seeding off the coast) and part of that is certainly due to the fact that the population has exploded since the 70's but no new reservoirs have been built.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top