from the article:
” Greening the ski industry is commendable, but it isn’t nearly enough. Nothing besides a national policy shift on how we create and consume energy will keep our mountains white in the winter — and slow global warming to a safe level.”
buahahahahahahahahahahah!
amazing thread
outstanding people…excluding moi
Background: born into a Pat Conroy novel… third from the left on human evolution chart…learned before age 10 how to hit a curve ball and that it can take more than 10 years for shrapnel to work it’s way out of one’s body
Studied classical guitar in college…short stint in the political industry…had a small contract with the Dept. of the Army of which many pages had been xeroxed so many times they were illegible…some work as a musician…attempts to escape Pat Conroy novel failed
got into martial arts ’cause I hated jogging (bad idea for an obsessive compulsive) matriculated in four, been doing that for a living for 20 years,
actively teaching Hapkido and Iaido, no desire or means to retire
began researching climate after hearing conservative talk show host (yes that one) say ‘there’s been no global warming for 17 years’
I thought, can’t possibly be true
CC views: align with kim and Tonyb, trying to understand the science better but the squiggly line food fight seems to go in circles
as a side effect of my work I did way too much meditation, and become an adherent of Advaita Vedanta philosophy
a non-dualist
so my main beef with climate science is this:
there is no separation of man and nature
nothing exist that is not natural
a dichotomy that does not exist can not be quantified
so ‘attribution’ cannot be determined and will always be a fake number
one last observation
most people I know would rather continue believing in ‘climate change’ than to accept that they may have been misled
thanks Judith
KenW –
Looks like Judith broke out the Zamboni –
In case you’ll see it here:
==> “we make no claim to authority here, Joshua. ”
So is your point is that the credentials listed in this thread are irrelevant to evaluating the beliefs espoused?
If so, I can’t say I agree. The credentials listed are of some value, just as they are when we consider the scientific credentials of the vast majority of scientific experts on the climate – who hold a set of beliefs that are different than the typical view here.
The scientific credentials of those involved in the discussion, and the prevalence of respective views among those with scientific background and training, is of some value for me, as someone who isn’t very bright or technically qualified, to assess probabilities.
Also, for me as someone who can’t evaluate the technical arguments on their own merits – the consistency of logic in the reasoning displayed is of some value. If someone makes logically inconsistent arguments in one area it doesn’t necessarily mean that the logic of their arguments in other areas is similarly afflicted by poor logic. But logical consistency is information that I can use to help me evaluate probabilities.
But of course, scientific credentials and logical consistency in other areas are both of limited value, as ultimately technical arguments should stand on their own merits. It would be wrong for me to think that either is dispositive.
My name is Henrik Mahlberg. I am lurker since the start of this blog, read almost every thread. I am a Swede and work with information technology for banks and insurance-industry. I am quit enivronmental friendly, for example we owned an electric car for seven years (before the batteries broke down, long before it was a hype). I become sceptic because of Al Gores film. I didn’t just belived in the hockey stick chart. I found Climate Audit…. I have become not just sceptic against climate scientists, I am really sceptic about all kind envirmental NGOs. I should probably label myself as a luke warmer.
Joshua, nobody is making a technical argument.
Our Hostess asked us to tell her who we are. We know who she is, so many of us thought it fair to tell her who we are.
We can’t help it – who we are.
You can make more of it if you want to, and apparently some people are bothered about who we are, but there’s really no more to it.
Seriously Judy? This is my third attempt to write this.
The girlish techno gushing? ‘Thanks guys. What clever technology!’
The patronising male techno superiority?
‘Your wonderful home air conditioner probably has a very cunningly designed and manufactured thing called a scroll compressor in it, as well as a fixed speed conventional compressor.’
It is all horrendously politically incorrect.
The way of saying very little with much cliched ornamentation? Speaks for itself.
The inverter runs a variable speed motor – who reduces electricity usage by 30% or so. Simple and almost ubiquitous in modern residential air conditioning. It doesn’t have two compressors – btw
He asks me where he went wrong? Let me count the ways of his scientific eccentricity. Allowing such wild narratives to proliferate in your little sociological experiment – as i have said before – is
not a point in your favour.
I wonder how all those people get to the ski resorts,or up the hill, or keep warm inside the lodges drinking fluids that are warmed how? I was just wonderin …
Thanks for the explanation of your view that there’s nothing meaningful about the thread
A lot of very intelligent people (many of of them scientifically educated, many not – but no poorer for that fact) on here explaining their reasons for coming to view catastrophic anthropogenic climate change with more than a hint of scepticism. Humanity is on display here and I am sure that those people on the other side of the fence, the alarmists, must have equally compelling stories to tell.
Therein lies the conundrum: we are all essentially driven by the same desires, goals, thoughts, feelings. moral guidelines etc. but we are separated by this chasm which has become ‘climate change’. You generally accept that man is (or is likely to be) altering the climate dangerously or you do not; there is very little in between as far as I can see. The adoption of either viewpoint seems to have an unnatural ‘skewing’ effect upon both groups such that their interaction re. climate change is almost always marred by friction; yet we share a vast commonality that seems to be submerged temporarily by this one issue, to such an extent that we tend to view ‘the other side almost as if they were from a different planet. Very odd.
‘Girlish techno gushing’ is unacceptable when directed at a commenter. ‘Saying very little with much cliched ornamentation’ is not a useful statement. These kind of statements are unnecessary and contribute to an unpleasant vibe at CE, as noted by many of the Denizen comments. Keep your comments substantive – provide counter arguments and evidence, not gratuitous insults.
Global population is leaving the country side ( where it takes up a lot of land ) to the cities ( which are more efficient ):
A BSc in Marine Biology and a healthy skepticism has lead me to question all the hype surrounding the Global Cooling in the 70’s and the current Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption. Even the eyeball rolling from family members has not deterred me from questionning the constant fear-mongering. Reading the Hockey Stick Illusion and The Deniers and Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit has re-nforced my skepticism. Plus my education in Evolution Theory, Climate chnages constantly. To claim it doesn’t or shouldn’t is foolish. And to claim man is the main instrument is even more foolish.
Why certainly it is meaningful, you now know who we are, Earthling.
What is the meaning of who you are? Is there nothing to who you are other than the few details posted by some of “you?.”
You now know who many of us are, and we have said what we think. You are welcome to do the same.
They are given 500 words to comment, and each selected something to say that they thought was either interesting or relevant. I thought most very very interesting, and few were fascinating. Joshua, did I miss your Denizens bio?
Joshua
I find biographies very meaningful. The experiences of some people can be remarkable and can affect our own lives.
Richard
Joshua,
You wrote –
“But of course, scientific credentials and logical consistency in other areas are both of limited value, as ultimately technical arguments should stand on their own merits. It would be wrong for me to think that either is dispositive.”
Would you be so good as to let me know what you mean by ” . . . credentials in other areas . . . “?
I assume you are referring to expertise in areas other than climatology, which of course is a non science. Therefore, any person claiming expertise or qualifications in the area of climatology is either a fool or a fraud, albeit unknowingly.
You move on to say that arguments should stand on their own merits, and I agree. The merits of the arguments involved should, and must, stand on facts. Of these the Warmists have none. No Great Moments in Climatology, no Nobel Prizes for Climatology, no Climatological Contributions to Humanity Through the Years.
Nothing.
The fact that people with higher degrees believed in the luminiferous aether, or the fixed nature of the continentsthe, or many other things, did not make them true.
I am an unbeliever in Global Warming for two reasons. First, the globe is not warming. Second, the proposed non existent warming mechanism involving CO2 has never been shown to exist. It’s all a pious hope, backed up with fervour rather than fact.
I choose not to believe in the non-existent. You believe the opposite, obviously. Good luck with your belief!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
Rob Ellison
The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows us to deduce that, when entropy is a maximum, the state of thermodynamic equilibrium exhibits a thermal gradient. That is what accounts for the surface temperatures of planets like Earth and Venus to be hotter than the effective radiating temperature.
You cannot explain, for example, how the necessary thermal energy gets down to the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus from the methane layer in the stratosphere where the insolation is absorbed. Nor can you explain how the surface of Venus actually rises in temperature during four months of insolation. We can explain all temperatures above and below any surface of any planet or moon:with the 21st century new paradigm that is a very significant breakthrough in science, and which is based on sound physics in which you, Ellison, are not qualified I suspect, because you don’t understand entropy for a start.
Water vapor does not cause the temperature gradient to go from isothermal to the “wet adiabatic lapse rate” thus increasing the magnitude of the slope. You know as well as I do that it does the exact opposite and reduces the magnitude of the thermal gradient from the “dry” rate that is induced by the effect of gravity acting on molecules in transition between collisions, in accord with the Kinetic Theory of Gases. You cannot prove us wrong without proving the Second Law of Thermodynamics wrong, because what we say about the effect of gravity is a direct corollary of the Second Law, which it appears you don’t understand because you don’t understand when, how and why changes in entropy occur. Come back when you know and understand this basic thermodynamics.
Doug, Jim, John, Lindsay, Alex and Wendy.
