Reply to: Maths and climate change (Here, here village idiots)

[sasguru]

For "*Plagiarised" read extracted from what seems a plausible scientifically sound source. Unlike you, who claim to be something of an armchair guru, I prefer to look at all angles before drawing a conclusion. Your definition of a "reliable source" involves you, to a scarily significant degree, amalgamating a variety of ideas and putting them forward as your own as if they have some credence. A practice that is so far removed from being scientific that it is quite frankly bizarre, even if we were to assume for a moment that you were not hindered by the unassailable fact that you have the detective skills of a sea-horse with special needs.

Blah blah. Your source is a journalist and hence not "scientifically sound ".
You seem to think that lots of words whacked together make you erudite but you only come across as a clueless pompous ass.

HTH

[shaunbhoy]

*Plagiarised.

For "*Plagiarised" read extracted from what seems a plausible scientifically sound source. Unlike you, who claim to be something of an armchair guru, I prefer to look at all angles before drawing a conclusion. Your definition of a "reliable source" involves you, to a scarily significant degree, amalgamating a variety of ideas and putting them forward as your own as if they have some credence. A practice that is so far removed from being scientific that it is quite frankly bizarre, even if we were to assume for a moment that you were not hindered by the unassailable fact that you have the detective skills of a sea-horse with special needs.

[sasguru]

I have little doubt that climate change is happening, it would be odd if it wasnt, what I am (still) not convinced of is the contribution made by mankind to these changes.
Because of this I am dubious about how we can mitigate these changes. If 4x4s are not causing it then taxing them out of existence isn't going to change a thing is it?
I want to see measures taken to survive climate change rather than to stop it. World leaders and tree huggers can crow all they like about reduced emissions but that isnt going to stop vast populations being flooded and habitable areas changing.

Being less reliant on fossil fuels and producing less pollution would be a noble cause in it's own right without the hysteria surrounding AGW.

Agreed.
Although the hysteria comes mainly from "think tanks" well-funded by the oil industry which don't actually do any research with the data but seize on isolated anomalies that don't necessarily disprove the totality of the AGW hypothesis.
Reminds me of the tobacco industry fighting tooth and nail with underhand tactics as the evidence mounted about the link between smoking and cancer.

[The Lone Gunman]

God Almighty!

I don't know whether this denial of the bleeding obvious is just to wind up SG or what.

Surely the congregation can't be that thick that they imagine the melting of polar ice to unprecedented (as long as records have been kept) levels does not indicate that the climate is warming.

What is it with you guys? Being a dumb flip for the sake of it?

I have little doubt that climate change is happening, it would be odd if it wasnt, what I am (still) not convinced of is the contribution made by mankind to these changes.
Because of this I am dubious about how we can mitigate these changes. If 4x4s are not causing it then taxing them out of existence isn't going to change a thing is it?
I want to see measures taken to survive climate change rather than to stop it. World leaders and tree huggers can crow all they like about reduced emissions but that isnt going to stop vast populations being flooded and habitable areas changing.

Being less reliant on fossil fuels and producing less pollution would be a noble cause in it's own right without the hysteria surrounding AGW.

[OwlHoot]

WTF!? Your take on science is quite unique. You (and sasg) are our special friends. Here's a special headline for you guys (and Tay and Diver):

As the weather gets hotter so the sheep are getting smaller

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1522223.ece

Observations of Soay sheep on Hirta island have shown that the warmer temperatures associated with global warming allow more smaller animals to survive the winter. And with greater numbers of smaller sheep living through the cold months, the average size of the animals falls.

I can't believe you highlight a simple summary of solar physics, which has been known about and uncontentious since at least the 50s, and then start drivelling on about sheep sizes

P.S. I did say "roughly", which I vainly hoped would make it clear the idea of an expanding spherical shell was a slight oversimplification (but evidently still not enough for you to grasp).

[sasguru]

"One awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. "*
Perhaps us GW deniers just have more balanced views and are not so easily spoonfed the party line that seems to afflict those with less enquiring minds?

*Plagiarised.

Don't make me laugh
Is that why most of your post is copied verbatim from here?

Talk about spoonfeeding - you don't even have the intellectual capacity to try and reframe it in your own words.
You go straight to the top of the Village Idiots club today

It's all explained here, but I doubt you'll understand it :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarct...ng_controversy

[sasguru]

Both those points are entirely factually incorrect.

And for that reason, I'm out.

Great argument. Let's make an unsupported assertion and bold it for extra emphasis.
Equivalent to sticking your hand in your ears and going "lalalala"

But then you are a meta-cretin so I expect nothing less.

[shaunbhoy]

What is it with you guys? Being a dumb flip for the sake of it?

One awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
Perhaps us GW deniers just have more balanced views and are not so easily spoonfed the party line that seems to afflict those with less enquiring minds?

[ace00]

1. Well the fact that ships can go round it now when they couldn't before (it's become an island) is significant
2. Really? The Antarctic is melting too, just not as fast
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ail011108.php

This bloke will be happy to share his data with you:
j.bamber@bristol.ac.uk

Both those points are entirely factually incorrect.

And for that reason, I'm out.

[sasguru]

OK, seriousley...
1. I disagree with the premise. If indeed Polar ice extent is unprecedented in the period of record keeping, perhaps you could supply a time period and evidence of such (I suspect you mean since 1979).
2. I agree polar ice is low, right now. It is exceeded by the increase in Antartic ice cover. Why don't you explain that?

1. Well the fact that ships can go round it now when they couldn't before (it's become an island) is significant
2. Really? The Antarctic is melting too, just not as fast
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-ail011108.php

This bloke will be happy to share his data with you:
j.bamber@bristol.ac.uk

[ace00]

Surely the congregation can't be that thick that they imagine the melting of polar ice to unprecedented (as long as records have been kept) levels does not indicate that the climate is warming.

OK, seriousley...
1. I disagree with the premise. If indeed Polar ice extent is unprecedented in the period of record keeping, perhaps you could supply a time period and evidence of such (I suspect you mean since 1979).
2. I agree polar ice is low, right now. It is exceeded by the increase in Antartic ice cover. Why don't you explain that?

[sasguru]

What is it with you guys? Being a dumb flip for the sake of it?

They can't help their poor genetic endowment.

[bogeyman]

God Almighty!

I don't know whether this denial of the bleeding obvious is just to wind up SG or what.

Surely the congregation can't be that thick that they imagine the melting of polar ice to unprecedented (as long as records have been kept) levels does not indicate that the climate is warming.

What is it with you guys? Being a dumb **** for the sake of it?

[ace00]

The average energy radiated by the Sun increases by about 1% every 100 million years, due roughly to a spherical combustion zone slowly working its way to the surface.

WTF!? Your take on science is quite unique. You (and sasg) are our special friends. Here's a special headline for you guys (and Tay and Diver):

As the weather gets hotter so the sheep are getting smaller

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle1522223.ece

Observations of Soay sheep on Hirta island have shown that the warmer temperatures associated with global warming allow more smaller animals to survive the winter. And with greater numbers of smaller sheep living through the cold months, the average size of the animals falls.

[OwlHoot]

Now tell us again, just why are other planets in our solar system also experiencing "Global Warming..........ooops I mean Climate Change"

Where's the evidence for that?