...more on Climategate

---

ah, good old Dick Lindzen... buying his cigarettes with the consulting fees he receives from the oil and coal lobby. Fortunatly, for him, according to him, there is no link between lung cancer and smoking."Can man control the climate" is not a sensible question. Can man change the planet? YesWelcome to the Anthropocene Epoch

Originally Posted By: unsupervised"Can man control the climate" is not a sensible question. Can man change the planet? YesWelcome to the Anthropocene Epoch "Can man change the planet?" is a strawman question (akin to a strawman argument). I can change the planet by picking up a stone and throwing it in the water...simple enough, the planet is now different. A better way of phrasing the question would have been "Can man change the climate?" The sensible answer, given the parameters under discussion, is still "No".

Yes, he seems happy to write articles suggesting his colleagues lie for professional advancement, but seems to miss his own motivations. How strange.thor, some of the people you quote seem to be arguing there is no global warming; some are arguing that there is but humans have nothing to do with it; Lindzen's view seems to be that there is but humans are responsible for only a bit of it and there's enough negative feedback to keep it small. I'm aware of the legal use of the argument "my client wasn't in the building at the time and if he was he wasn't part of the gang and if he was part of the gang he was being forced to do it", but the contradictions don't really raise confidence. They can't all be right!

strawman vs strawman... well playedoh, I fated. The gas mix of the atmosphere is forever changed!pleaseHow do you arrive at this "sensible" answer when, in your own life time, we have seen smog, acid rain, ozone depletion? Or are you just trying to wage a semantic argument? Sure, we can change the planet and it's atmosphere but not the climate, which is strangely separate from the planet and it's atmosphere.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedHow do you arrive at this "sensible" answer when, in your own life time, we have seen smog, acid rain, ozone depletion? Smog has existed for hundreds of thousands of years...long before the industrial age, or man for that matter. Sure, it's worse now. But the net man-made effect of it on the climate = zero. If you're referring to industrial polution that effects our environment, that is a different story...but it still has no effect on the climate.Acid rain...when was the last time we had some. Do you know? Do you know what long-term effects have been the result? I'd like to hear it.As for ozone depletion, that was a poorly understood phenomenon that scientists prematurely pushed the panic button on. I suggest you read up on it before commenting further. Quote:Sure, we can change the planet and it's atmosphere but not the climate, which is strangely separate from the planet and it's atmosphere. LOL! Now look who's playing with semantics. If you light a match, you've changed the atmosphere in a very localized way...but not the climate. Get it?

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

They can't all be right!

True...but it doesn't really matter which one is right, does it. We admit we don't know for sure. But either way, the concept of global warming as pushed by Gore and his cronies is wrong.

BTW, loved his analogy of tripping over the box. But it would have been a more accurate analogy to say that the box was somewhere in the room, and we don't know for sure if it was the box that caused the person carrying the eggs to trip.

But apparently, there are some that think just because, in their estimation, it could have been what caused the person to trip, we should now place limits on how many boxes everyone can have. Give me a break. :smirk:

None of this would ever have happened if there weren't folks in powerful positions that stand to make a lot of money over this issue. 60 Minutes should run a special entitled "The Fleecing of the World" over this one.

Quote:True...but it doesn't really matter which one is right, does it. We admit we don't know for sure. But either way, the concept of global warming as pushed by Gore and his cronies is wrong.Of course it matters! You are trying to argue 'not-A'. It is useless merely to state the existence of alternative propositions B, C or D - that makes no difference to whether A is true or not. To make a difference, you have to argue that an alternative proposition is true. Now you are saying that the truth of B, C and D is uncertain - in which case, there is no reason why they might not all be false and A true.I sometimes wonder what goes through your mind, thor. Quote:Acid rain...when was the last time we had some. Do you know? Do you know what long-term effects have been the result? I'd like to hear it.Bloody hell, thor, do you think that because you haven't heard of something it's not happening? Acid rain has now reduced (but not by any means been eliminated), due to governmental legislation that has forced scrubbing of power plant stack gases that has much reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, and car exhaust legislation that has reduced emission of nitrogen oxides. However, the industrialisation of China and India could threaten this.Some effects of acid rain include loss of forests (which recovers extremely slowly when whole forests go) and acidification of lakes, killing fish species (depending on the geology, recovery can be very slow - many lakes in Scandinavia are still very acidic and support no fish).A few links for you:http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/http://www.ec.gc.ca/AcidRain/acidwater.htmlhttp://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e55/55a.htmhttp://www.ezilon.com/information/article_13789.shtmlhttp://www.colby.edu/personal/r/rfellows/Acid Rain & Deposition.html Quote:As for ozone depletion, that was a poorly understood phenomenon that scientists prematurely pushed the panic button on. I suggest you read up on it before commenting further.On the contrary, the scientists saw the danger and warned the public, as you would expect them to. They predicted a decrease in ozone, and it happened. It continues to happen, and ozone levels have continued to decrease, though there are signs now of stabilisation, and models suggest a detectable recovery starting around 2024 and returning to normal levels in the second half of this century.There's a good Wikipedia article, that gives a very good overview and also briefly discusses recent research. Quote:None of this would ever have happened if there weren't folks in powerful positions that stand to make a lot of money over this issue.And there are no wealthy industrialists who stand to lose money unless they can convince gullible people it's all a hoax? Can't you see where the money is?

if you've noticed, their side of the fence, let's call them the Scorched Earth Society, can't even agree upon their own version of the "truth"

There are the Monktons that say nothing is happening and the Lindzens who say something is happening, it's just not our fault. How can they present a cogent argument if they haven't even established a position?

thor, maybe you didn't notice the subtle yet significant differences in those two positions. Maybe you should decide where you stand on the matter and stick to it. Oh, and I thought we'd agreed to "try to look to the sources and be mindful of creeping special interest behind the scene". Then you posted from heartland.org. tisk tisk, for shame

Thanks for the links on acid rain. Quote:...the scientists saw the danger and warned the public, as you would expect them to. They predicted a decrease in ozone, and it happened. It continues to happen, and ozone levels have continued to decrease, though there are signs now of stabilisation, and models suggest a detectable recovery starting around 2024 and returning to normal levels in the second half of this century.What scientists discovered, since you obviously need to get up to speed, is that the ozone layer is cyclical....hmmmm. Sound like a familiar concept perahps? Quote: Quote:None of this would ever have happened if there weren't folks in powerful positions that stand to make a lot of money over this issue.And there are no wealthy industrialists who stand to lose money unless they can convince gullible people it's all a hoax? Can't you see where the money is? I know where the money is, AND where it stands to be. The logical scientists, the ones who stand to gain no money (and perhaps get blackballed) are the ones that should be listened to...the same ones the UN/Gore cronies are trying to stifle. Sorry...your synopsis doesn't wash...you are the one who has been duped.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

if you've noticed, their side of the fence, let's call them the Scorched Earth Society, can't even agree upon their own version of the "truth"

There are the Monktons that say nothing is happening and the Lindzens who say something is happening, it's just not our fault. How can they present a cogent argument if they haven't even established a position?

thor, maybe you didn't notice the subtle yet significant differences in those two positions. Maybe you should decide where you stand on the matter and stick to it. Oh, and I thought we'd agreed to "try to look to the sources and be mindful of creeping special interest behind the scene". Then you posted from heartland.org. tisk tisk, for shame

Why don't you go back and read those links again...think about it...then read them again; until it sinks in. What was said is that "A" is not true...but if it were, mankind is STILL NOT the influencing factor "B". So, basically, the global warming cronies aren't just lieing about one concept...they have to lie about two (at least) in order to sell their tripe. That's the point that both you and Inelligible apparently refuse (giving you the benifit of the doubt) to grasp.

Quote:What was said is that "A" is not true...but if it were, mankind is STILL NOT the influencing factor "B". So, basically, the global warming cronies aren't just lieing about one concept...they have to lie about two (at least) in order to sell their tripe um, ok, umdidn't know you were a partaker of the sweet herb but it's not my place to judge.I'm almost at a loss for words (congratulations!)I'm going to have to go back to a text book to even identify what this particular rhetorical vehicle is called.I'm just going to have to let that one air out for a bit.So tell me, where is the fantastic wealth for the climate scientists coming from and how does it trump the poor, beleaguered, altruistic Samaritans of the fossil fuel industry?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedSo tell me, where is the fantastic wealth for the climate scientists coming from and how does it trump the poor, beleaguered, altruistic Samaritans of the fossil fuel industry? This question, because it ignores certain relavant facts, makes no sense. It is what is referred to as a "non sequitur".Maybe go out, get a few hours of fresh air, then come back and have another crack at it?

look up Non sequitur and take another crack at it.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedlook up Non sequitur and take another crack at it. You first.

I know you are but what am I?

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedI know you are but what am I? Just a suggestion...take it or leave it.

as you read up on non sequiturs, let's look at yours. climate change and man's responsibility...your argument is basically framed thus;A = falseif A = true, then B = falsetherefore A+B = falsein this simple form, the non sequitur is not so apparent. First, as there is scientific and anecdotal evidence that A and/or be are true, then one or both should be assigned the value of "undetermined", making the conclusion that "A+B = false" a non sequiturbut even more basically than that, without knowing what the variable A & B represent, the first two statements are in conflict. "if A = true" brings "A = false" into question, therefore A = undetermined, again making the conclusion that "A+B = false" a non sequitur.are you keeping up so far?climate science and profiteering...my question, though framed sarcastically, is not a non sequitur. Your statement kind of dodges non sequitur status by leaving many of the variables blank, such as the whos and the hows of environmentalist profiteering. Fill in the blanks and we can discuss the argument.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

as you read up on non sequiturs, let's look at yours.

climate change and man's responsibility...

your argument is basically framed thus;

A = false
if A = true, then B = false
therefore A+B = false

Nope. More like: If A cannot equal C
and B cannot equal C

What kind of moron would conclude that A + B = C?

My point is that there is no correlation between the rise in temperature and what is known, and that (at least) two falsehoods must be accepted before you can make that leap of faith.

Hopefully it is now apparent why your previous statement was a non sequitur.

Originally Posted By: thorNope. More like: If A cannot equal C and B cannot equal C What kind of moron would conclude that A + B = C?1 doesn't equal 3.2 doesn't equal 3.But 1 + 2 equals 3.Freaky maths!