Boffins: global warming kills lemmings, not suicide The Norwegian lemming population is dwindling - through no fault of its own. According to a report published in the science journal Nature, lemming numbers are shrinking thanks to rising temperatures brought on by global warming, putting an end to the population peaks and valleys that have traditionally characterized the …
Lars the Lemming!
I have a question.
As far as I know, for something like a lemming to evolve takes a fair while, probably more than a thousand years. Now, a thousand years ago in the Viking age, the reason the Vikings were able at all to have an `age´was because of a thing called a `North European Mini Climactic Peak´, during this peak mean average temperatures were 3-4 degrees higher than the averages for the twentieth century. Which, coincidentally is the same figure that I read as being the likely outcome of the current climate change we are undergoing. If that is the case then almost certainly lemmings are not truly indigenous to Scandinavia so where did they come from as immigrants?
If they are truly indigenous then they must have adapted to the changes in that region since the last ice age up to and including the climactic peak and after and will adapt again to the current changes or, since they seem to have sufficient volition, they will move to better climes.
Now come on folks we've all seen the evidence ourselves, dont let these revisionist scientists turn you away from the truth.
Lemmings do kill themselves, I saw em do it on my computer monitor :P
ehehehehehehehehehehe
/goes away to dust off old copy of lemmings and a 486 to play it on and mass murder a whole bunch of the dumb things
The true lemmings are the ones who continue to believe in global warming and climate change despite the mountain of evidence saying otherwise. Those lemmings ignore the mountain and blindly follow some other idiot, such as Al Gore, members of the UN IPCC, and politicians.
Not even Paris Hilton is that stupid.
Since the media won't report it, I'll tell you: Oct. 2008 has seen the fastest Arctic sea ice extent growth ever recorded. According to the data published by IARC-JAXA, the amount of growth has reached 3,481,575 square kilometers for the month, or 112,319 sq km per day on avg.
Global warming proponents rely on alarmism to maintain a steady flow of research grants and financial contributions, but none of the apocalyptic visions of global warming are coming to pass.
Based on real empirical data, not computer simulations, it's highly unlikely that the Antarctic ice cap will melt, nor will the Greenland ice cap slide into the sea and cause a 7 meter rise in sea levels, as alarmists claim will happen ad nauseam.
In spite of recent claims that the Antarctic is warming, in actuality the Antarctic has shown no general warming trend in the past three decades, whether the data comes from ground station records, satellites, or weather balloons, nor is there any evidence of diminishing sea ice extent. In 2007, the Antarctic winter sea ice maximum was at an all-time high and 2008 levels have been consistent with the long-term average.
As for the Arctic, a recent NASA study found the recent warming was probably due to changed ocean currents carrying greater amounts of warm water into the Arctic basin from the Pacific and Atlantic.
Copious empirical data combined with mathematics and the employment of the scientific method has proven that CO2 cannot catastrophically warm the planet, nor has CO2 caused any significant warming. Real data doesn't lie (only alarmists do): The slight warming of the past century is a continuation of the natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Furthermore, there has been no net warming since 1998, and in fact, the planet is currently experiencing a global cooling trend, something the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) didn't predict would happen. If the IPCC couldn't predict this current cooling trend, how can we rely on them to make predictions of climate 30, 50, or 100 years into the future based on computer simulations?
Anthropogenic global warming is a lie. Oppose any carbon emissions legislation or carbon cap-and-trade schemes that generate high profits for a few while causing millions to suffer due to soaring energy prices.
The aim of all scientists is to secure funding and the easiest way to do it these days is to somehow tie your research area to Global Warming. Sure many scientists think Global Warming is a crock (or at least is not "proven" -- whatever that means), but you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
If you were in the CIA then you'd know that your funding and power depends on the commie/Islamic threat. Therefore you fan the commie/Islamic flame. The last thing anyone in the CIA wants is peace because that would do them out of jobs.
If you're an IPCC scientist then you know that your funding & conferences etc depend on keeping the threat alive. Same deal.
The unwashed masses seem to love drama and the scientific community are always keen to play along. Just look at the list we've had over the last few years:
* AIDS: We were supposed to all be dead by now weren't we. Sure, some people die, but for the most part so long as you don't play silly buggers with needles or todgers you're OK.
* SARS: 774 deaths in a few years. It was supposed to go around the wold in a killing spree.
* Bird Flu: 243 deaths. Mostly in Indonesia where people live with poultry walking around in their houses.
* Mad Cow Disease: About 150 deaths
Yet boring and less newsworthy stuff kills far more of us:
* Cars: Hundreds of thousands per year.
* Tuberculosis: 1.5 million per year
1. Sea ice extent reached second lowest level ever recorded this year. It's not surprising that the surface area has had a correspondingly large recovery, but it is the thickness that will not recover. The climate scientists are the first to point out the 2007 minimum was exacerbated by the 'weather' of ocean currents, but the shrinking trend is now so huge and so prolonged that you would have to be a particularly special class of ostrich to deny it.
2. "Copious empirical data combined with mathematics and the employment of the scientific method has proven that CO2 cannot catastrophically warm the planet, nor has CO2 caused any significant warming". Citation? Please? Where on earth (pardon the puns, I really can't help it) do you get this notion from? Even global-warming sceptics seem to have finally given up contesting that the globe is warming, and that CO2 is a cause. You're supposed to be arguing that global warming doesn't matter. Get on message.
3. "no net warming since 1998". For crying out loud - 1998 was the warmest year ever recorded. Ever - since records began. It was a strong El nino year. Look at a moving average of even a few years and that 'no net warming' starts to look pretty shaky.
4. The state of the antarctic is pretty well understood and captured by the models. As I understand it, the main reason it behaves differently is that the presence of clear ocean all round the earth allows continuous encircling currents that do a great job insulating the continent from the rest of the warming planet. This is in obvious contrast to the Arctic. (apologies to any climate scientist if I've got this garbled...)
Why do I believe the IPCC consensus? If you look at their record, they have been spectacularly good at predicting the recent changes in climate. Check out how the global cooling of Mt. Pinatubo was predicted by Hansen in 1992 using the existing climate models: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1992/91GL02788.shtml
"The true lemmings are the ones who continue to believe in global warming and climate change despite the mountain of evidence saying otherwise"
Hahahah.
What kind of animal is it that has no affinity for science but likes to be "controversial" and deny things that the scientific community accepts as fact? People like global warming deniers and creationists, who reject the most solidly researched evidence if it doesn't fit into their world view, but accept the most flimsy circumstantial evidence if it does? Is there a name for them?
I'm surprised you people have time to post on The Register. Surely you should be digging a bunker ready for when the LHC is turned on?
I would refute your points one by one, but I can't be botherd, so I will pick the ones I know about off the top of my head...
"Bird Flu: 243 deaths. Mostly in Indonesia where people live with poultry walking around in their houses."
The fear is not Bird Flu itself, as that is very difficult to transmit. The fear is that the H5N1 strain is very deadly. This would cause a problem if it met, and mixed with, Human Flu, and became airborne. It would then be deadly and easy to transmit.
AIDS is one of the largest killers in Africa. In some places the infection rait is over 25%, so please don't give me that out dated crap about "its only for queers and smak heads".
TB holds no fear because it is easy to treat. The problem is not in stopping it, but in funding the vacinations.
SARS was a scare whilst people did not know what it was. People were dieing from an unknown disease, so it was feard.
Please please check your facts before looking like a fool.
"Having to subdue the bastards by whacking them with a walking-boot at 3AM was kinda annoying."
Hell, how many "whack-a-mole" games have there been? Who much MONEY have people spent on it? And you got it FOR FREE!?!? And you're complaining???
And in Real-D rather than the crappy 2-D most of the rest of us get to have.
Pah! Kids today!
We've hit some bingo points here:
@Matt Davey. Normally when you propose a theory (AGW in this case) you should cite the empirical evidence backing it up, then allow those who don't agree to pick the theory apart if possible. But wait, there is none, and many of those proponents are rather reluctant to publish their methods (Prof. Mann for example).
1998, warmest on whose scale? IF GISS, then when the 'adjustments' were corrected the warmest year went to 1934. Not a particularly reliable measure.
You mention IPCC Consensus, what does this mean? Science is not decided on a show of hands, but rather on hard evidence. 2500 people contribute to the IPCC reports (including two of my colleagues here), but only around 50 actually decide in what appears in the report..
@ Steen Hive: 2 points for the ad hominem
@Chris G 4 Bingo Points for the oil company ad hominem
@ Eddie Edwards: 10 points for the denialist ad hominem, but I'm afraid a -4 points for mentioning 'global warming', it's now call 'climate change' bad boy!
Lets face it, the climate is always changing, so we should adapt. Why not bin this cap and trade madness and spend the money helping those 3 billion people who live on less then $2.50 a day, that we could achieve...
With another appearance by the global warming "conspiracy" idiots - like the theotards, another group of people who likes to cherry-pick from the scientific literature in order to further an agenda - is it not time for a Sarah Palin icon to be introduced for the purpose of addressing these inbreds?
I'm not sure what you're talking about with regards to GISS figures for the warmest year: the 1934 figure is for the US, not globally, which kind of obviates your point there. You might want to take look at their latest figures http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
I think the introductory paragraph is worth reading: "The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."
This has already been covered, but just bolster the argument with my humble 2p (or if we've finally been subsumed by the EU, 2c)...
What has given rise to the belief (and subsequent computer game profits) that lemmings commit suicide was a Disney film that made them do so.
Someone told Disney that lemmings like to throw themselves off cliffs, so Disney thought "oo.. this would make a great film". And after the budget had been secured and locations visited they found out that actually, no they don't.
So they had two choices:
1) Go home and explain to their bosses that they were prize prats, or.
2) Make it happen.
I think we can all guess which option they went with. Always better to save face at the expense of rodent lives than to admit you made a cock up.
-- Richard
"@Matt Davey. Normally when you propose a theory (AGW in this case) you should cite the empirical evidence backing it up, then allow those who don't agree to pick the theory apart if possible."
Um, try RealClimate or the IPCC reports. You may have heard about the IPCC.
Now where is your theory that all this warmer global temperatures and melting ice is just another thingy? Let us look at YOUR empirical evidence for this and let us who disagree with you to pick your theory apart if possible.
You seem reluctant. Hell, shouldn't be surprised. You're reluctant to even use a nickname.
@AC, nice bingo snark but your credibility takes a hit when your snark is easily debunkable. The GISS correction which you claim moves the warmest year to 1934 was for the temperature of the continental US only - not the entire globe.
In any case GISS and NCDC cite 2005 as the top year for global temperature in their respective series - which rather undercuts the 'global warming stopped in 1998' talking point currently doing the rounds in the denialist echo chamber.
Regards
Luke
better to save face at the expense of rodent lives
What, you expected the prats to jump off the cliff themselves?
So what's the correct terminology for the global warming /not warming argument....do we have any clear indicators like for the murderer v pro-life (aka pro-choice v anti-abortion) debate? or do we just pick a new name for it every week and hope people stop looking at the geological records that show the earth has gone through a great many heating / cooling cycles and stop making this a political / economic jackpot for one side or the other?
what was the IT angle anyway?
"Um, try RealClimate or the IPCC reports. You may have heard about the IPCC."
I meant science references not political references, especially real climate...
The arctic ice melts and freezes, what are he consequences of the more or less arctic ice? Should we worry about this, I don't know.. I hear lots of scare stories and theories, and little else.
The climate changes, and always have, but why is the current warming phase (which some studies suggest has stopped) due to our activity. It's very convenient to pin our increasing output of CO2 to the rise in temp. But correlation does not necessarily equal causation and that is the problem. The idea that a trace gas Co2, has such a major impact on world temperatures has not yet been proven. There is too much computer modelling and not enough hard science behind it.
As for the no nickname, well in my line of work, being outspoken on this subject can be a career limiting move.
Science is about promoting your theories and allowing your peers to try and knock them down, that was the case. Today science is too politicized, with climate science being one of the worst. In this sort of scientific climate how do judge what is reliable and what is not. Politicians saying that the 'science is settled' is simply an anathema.
There is the IPCC report site. Your government paid for it and you can demand access if you think you can't get it.
There is no way to attach the reams (literally) of evidence to an El Reg site. This isn't even the place FOR such evidence to be put.
Look at the scientific journals.
Look at the evidence people have risked someone finding wrong publically to see what the evidence for either side is.
Then notice that the denial side have no evidence.
Well this isn't a scientific journal site. Go to the scientific journals. The evidence for AGW is there.
There's a severe lack of evidence *against* it, but only black-helicopter-wingnut-conspiracy theorists would maintain that this is a conspiracy against the anti=AGW crowd.
I mean, the chances of so many people publicly known (as opposed to in a government department whose existence was denied for decades) having managed to create and maintain such a conspiracy is far less likely than the US government cover up of a conspiracy to deliberately blow up the WTC...
"The aim of all scientists is to secure funding"
You have a very odd view of what a "Scientist" is or does. Let me guess, they all have white coats, glasses and work in "Labs" doing "Experiments" for no recognisable client or purpose?
I think part of the problem you see is not Scientists offering their hysterics direct to the public, because this doesn't tend to happen. Public preception of science and scientists and much of the research done is from the media. They tend to report either the most sensational (although often not true) elements of a study or marketing press releases dressed up as science (read a "Boffins have discovered the the formula for the perfect something" story recently?). Try www. badscience.net next time you think you see scientists play to the crowd in the tabloids.
@ Matt Davey
1 and 2. While I agree that that Truth Seeker was naughty for not stating his sources, you really shouldn’t do the same – which is exactly what you did. Also, yes the globe is (was) warming and CO2 was most likely a contributor, but your statement does not invalidate the claim of “cannot catastrophically warm the planet, nor has CO2 caused any significant warming” – the difference here is one of scale.
3. Your statement of 1998 being the warmest doesn’t invalidate the statement “no net warming since 1998”. Also, I believe we’ve had several lesser El Ninos since then, all without that same peak! [sourse: Wiki – I know but this IS common knowledge)
4. Models do not capture the ‘state’ of anything, nor do they understand them. Models are only as good and true as the people compiling them.
Cheery picking one example of a successful prediction is not proof one is good at prediction. Perhaps they get as many correct as they get wrong? (of course they won’t publicise the ones they get wrong will they!). One will inevitably make a perfect prediction if enough of them are made (monkeys and typewriters?)
Oh, and the IPCC are allegedly far from having a consensus (one link at random: http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/ipcc_consensus.html)
@ Steen Hive, Chris G
Given your behaviour, how can anyone take you, and your obvious beliefs, seriously? Do you really think you are doing your cause any favours?
@ Mark
How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason, especially-especially when only one side gets the majority of funding and media attention? Being sceptical does not make one a ‘black-helicopter-wingnut-conspiracy theorist’ (just in case you were implying it).
@ Pascal Monett
Seconded! I fear the likes of you are too far and few between!
Those who say ‘see the IPCC site’ aren’t helping the debate.
.
Don’t get me wrong, I do worry that we could be f***ing our planet, but the real danger is ignoring the one catastrophic danger sign because the self-proclaimed climate scientists cried wolf one time too many. The sight of scientists acting like politicians and politicians acting like scientists don’t help. Heck, we should be thankful if we changed the climate enough to stave off the next (and what would have been – *inevitable*) ice age. Does anyone care to remind me what Europe was like during the last one 10k years ago?
Aye, and all the women are mousey haired with glasses but as soon as they put away the glasses and let their hair down, they turn out to be drop dead gorgeous and REALLY rampant sexually.
Oh, hang on, that's only in my dreams.
Sigh.
PH is confused too. She *always* wears a white labcoat...
How do you prove something there when it is swamped by noise? Well, noise being what we call "randomly distributed" cancels out when you average. So a computer statement:
a=RAND()*10000+1;
will show the "+1" when you have at least 100000000 values of a to look into. Even though the signal is 10,000 times smaller than the noise.
That is how.
Oh yes indeed, that method is how we came to the global cooling scare - right?
If you really want to try to be clever: how about analysing the frequency spectrum of the noise - especially the long-term ramps. Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component? Let's see:
Last ice age (minima only): 10000 years ago
Measurement period: 300 years (and the early ones were sketchy)
Ha!
The really funny thing about your response is that you talk about noise as if I it was the basis of my argument, yet in actuality I hadn't mentioned any such thing. I actually said: "... swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason" - not knowing the cause of external influences does not mean they must be categorised as noise. Not only is your response grotesquely flawed, it is utterly irrelevant.
If that's the only thing you can find wrong with my response to you then you truly are lost!
How do we get from
a=RAND()*10000+1
to
Global Cooling scare? Which scare, I may say was not one from the scientists but from two (yes, that's right TWO) newspapers. Have you ever read the paper? I bet you haven't.
You aren't lost, you don't even know where you're going.
The global cooling argument came about because people who wrongly thought they understand these things (!) let people believe they could make a prediction based on a relatively short-term trend without consideration of long-term external influences.
“However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an AVERAGE of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.” That’s taken from the classic Time Magazine article. Note the use of the word ‘average’ as well as the simplistic analysis. Newsweek (The Cooling World) is also a classic source. Those two outlets were the two largest selling weekly outlets in the US, do you really believe no other newspapers reported this? Please! The New York Times and Science magazine, among others, also repeated the scare. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20998-2004Dec22.html]. So there were indeed more than “two (yes, that's right TWO)” that had reported it - ha! (as irrelevant as this is, it is likely there were many more but I needn’t bother searching because the principle has been proven).
Crucially, I didn’t say the scare came from scientists, nor does it matter. The scare actually came from people who wrongly thought they could make use of overly simplistic algorithms, much like your averaging, as the basis of their analysis; they were wrong of course. They didn’t help matters by stating other simplistic things like “… the present decline has taken the planet about 1/6 of the way toward the ice age average.”
Now do you understand? The people who are using these over-simplistic processes are causing such scares. Speaking of which - can I assume you don’t have an answer for my question regarding the frequency spectrum and averaging period? Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period whilst lacking the knowledge of the shape of the cycles and where the averaging period is within the phase of them, using the simple averaging process you quoted?
Also, how do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?
Returning to the original point by again asking: how does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason?
I’ve answered all your questions, so will you act like another scaremonger and evade mine – yet again? I guess that’s what you get when someone with critical intelligence scrutinises the opinion of one guided by an hidden external influence. I won’t reply if your next response is as witless as your previous.
Nope, did you READ the single paper in the scientific journal that two newspapers decided to run with?
No, because if you had, you would know that you're talking bollocks.
Hang on, I'm being too restrictive. You could have read it and decided to spout bollocks anyway.
The paper concluded that aerosols were cooling the planet and that unless they were reduced, could cause a global cooling catastrophe.
Now, a timeout here. Note: the clean air act came in some time after. This reduced the aerosols. This was a political change and was not open to modelling. So back into the paper summary.
The paper then said that the effect of CO2 was increasing and that this could eventually render this global cooling redundant in any case. But that more study was needed into both aerosol and anthropogenic CO2 emissions was needed before any conclusion could be reached.
That last bit was ignored by the papers. Just the headline "Global Cooling!" got out. Nothing about how the authors themselves were not sure if this was a real issue. Nothing about how more study would be needed to see if it could happen. Nothing about how a change in the aerosols being produced could negate the whole paper. Nothing about how CO2 could still cause global warming that would swamp the cooling effect of the dirty air.
And because you either didn't read or don't care to repeat the contents (because it would spike your argument) you only spout the misinformation that the papers decided to print up.
You sad pathetic sheep.
Contrary to your belief, I do already know about the aerosols and orbital forcing; at no point have I disputed the scientific analysis behind global cooling; any suggestion that I did is entirely your own fantasy! This is irrelevant, my point is that no-one can dispute there was plenty of scare-mongering above and beyond what the scientists were claiming, resulting from over-simplistic interpretations (for which I gave examples). You said it yourself: “That last bit was ignored by the papers. Just the headline "Global Cooling!" got out….” - this was exactly the point I was making from the start. I’m not ‘spouting the misinformation’, I’m merely comparing the cause of that misinformation with your simplistic view (your post: 10th November 2008 14:44 GMT) – indeed this is the sole cause of our ping-pong. So do you care to say exactly which part I said was bollocks? I know you won’t because to do so would spike your tactic of misrepresenting my statements! Heck I’ve even proved you were talking bollocks with your “two (yes, that's right TWO) newspapers” claim, something you’ve not countered.
You clearly do not understand the issue of using averaging to extract information. This is evident by the fact I explained how your reasoning is flawed and prompting you to respond in a pertinent manner – which you’ve yet again evaded. Now I didn’t need to respond to you because you didn’t ask any questions of me, but I shall repeat mine so I can expose you for the evasive and disingenuous fool I suspected you were. If your next response is evasive then my next reply will very likely be nothing more than repeating the same 4 questions; don’t reply if you can’t answer them (I bet you do reply without the answers).
- How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason?
- Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component?
- Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period whilst lacking the knowledge of the shape of the cycles and where the averaging period is within the phase of them, using the simple averaging process you quoted?
- How do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?
It doesn’t matter if I’ve read the paper; our understanding of it doesn’t add to, or detract from, either of our arguments (I don’t have an ‘agenda’ as you so sweetly put it, I’m merely demonstrating yours. You’re not endearing yourself to the critical reader).
Don’t think I don’t know what you’re doing. You’re trying to distract the reader from your poor understanding of the application of the averaging process by attempting to focus the debate on a side note, then misrepresenting my statements regarding it to try to keep us there; now that you’re cornered you're feigning a hissy fit: “Why should I read anything else” but I’m not biting. I’m not a climate scientist, nor am I a social scientist, but you have to admit that my predictions regarding the contents your responses are spot on! I predict you will continue responding without answering the pertinent questions. I can answer yours with yet more questions:
- Why should I needlessly complicate this debate by bringing something which neither of us has questioned, has reason to dispute, and is irrelevant? How does referring to it add to the debate of the flaw of your post of 10th November 2008 14:44 GMT?
- So do you care to say exactly where and how was I “talking bollocks”?
- If I haven't “been honest” can you state exactly where and how?
- Can you give, and substantiate, any reason why you shouldn’t answer my questions?
- How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason?
- Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component?
- Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period whilst lacking the knowledge of the shape of the cycles and where the averaging period is within the phase of them, using the simple averaging process you quoted?
- How do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?
It does matter if you've read it because your rant started off with
" Oh yes indeed, that method is how we came to the global cooling scare - right?"
Which would be wrong if you knew what you were talking about. Because that WASN'T how we came to the global cooling scare.
Given that you are ignorant of any evidence and willful in your attempts to bring up lies to bolster your position, why would anyone think that anything else you blather on about is any more true or well researched than that line quoted there?
None.
So until you've proven you are able to back your wildass theories up with real thought, real evidence and real truth, what you say will remain a lie.
"How does referring to it add to the debate of the flaw of your post of 10th November 2008 14:44 GMT?"
What flaw. Strange that you say later
"So do you care to say exactly where and how was I “talking bollocks”?"
Rather ironic, really.
And you are talking bollocks in the exact sense of "The Global Cooling Scare whas from scientists" is bollocks. It wasn't. If you'd READ the scientific paper you would know that. That, precisely, is where you're talking bollocks.
"If I haven't “been honest” can you state exactly where and how?" You have not honestly said you never read it, never honestly retracted the incorrect statement and never honestly answered by questions.
"Can you give, and substantiate, any reason why you shouldn’t answer my questions?" Yes. You never answered mine. Only accused me. You have lied because you heard a quote somewhere that suits your bias and it was wrong, so any answer to your questions will be ignored if they can't further your agenda.
"How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason?" You can't. And again an dishonest question. Global Warming is there. The CO2 from human output is large and definitively and unambiguously there. And detecting something that is there, even when swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason is possible.
"Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component?" Yes.
"Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period" Such as what?
"How do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?" Because "noise" is the opposite of "signal". "Noise" is the elements that hide the signal because their cause is unrelated so reducing the correlation unless longer sampling is done.
There, Now I've answered yours.
Now, answer mine:
Have you read the reports from scientists on the global cooling in the 70's?
How many were there?
What external influence beyond the timescale is not taken into account in GCMs?
Why are you adamant in your insistence that there is nothing anthropogenic about the recent global warming? And even seem to be demanding there IS no warming.
I've answered yours. Now you do mine.
“There, Now I've answered yours.”
Please, most were merely addressed.
“So until you've proven you are able to back your wildass theories up with real thought, real evidence and real truth,”
I’ve quoted relevant text outside of this forum; I’ve given links to such text; I’ve explained my reasoning – which has gone uncountered. Conversely, you’ve not quoted, linked, or offered logical reasoning. You are the blackest pot!
- How does referring to it add to the debate of the flaw of your post of 10th November 2008 14:44 GMT?
Not only did I notice how you didn’t actually answer that question, you somehow conveniently missed the prior one. I can understand how someone acting disingenuously would prefer to conveniently completely drop that question; to answer it would prove the subsequent parts of your post are irrelevant. I shall repeat it:
- Why should I needlessly complicate this debate by bringing something which neither of us has questioned, has reason to dispute, and is irrelevant? (1*)
“And you are talking bollocks in the exact sense of "The Global Cooling Scare whas from scientists" is bollocks.”
Quoth thyself: ” at no point have I disputed the scientific analysis behind global cooling; any suggestion that I did is entirely your own fantasy!” – this statement went uncountered. Prove me wrong, quote the text where I said it came from the scientists; afterall, the unanswered question was:
- "So do you care to say exactly *WHERE* and how was I “talking bollocks”?"
“You have not honestly said you never read it, never honestly retracted the incorrect statement and never honestly answered by questions.”
The only question I’ve not answered is whether I’ve read the papers. To be frank with you, I’m loathed to tell you if I’ve read them because I want to prevent giving you an opportunity to further divert the argument away from your lack of understanding of the issues involved (which you’re already started doing (2)). Regardless, this remains irrelevant and unneeded until you answer the question (1) above.
You’ve tried to twist the meaning of honest; you’ve taken the lack of frankness to be equal to an act of deception, which is of course a non-sequitur. You’ve repeatedly claimed I have lied, so….
- Can you show me where and how I “have lied” ? Can you quote the “incorrect statement” and *explain* how it is incorrect?
“You have lied because you heard a quote somewhere that suits your bias and it was wrong,”
Haa ha haa – let me get this right: I have heard that something was wrong, therefore I lied? Man you are funny! Perhaps you meant to say that I quoted a wrongful statement, which is true, but my explaining how a wrongful statement is indeed wrong does not make me wrong, does it? My only bias is being against disingenuous individuals.
How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason? "You can't.”
THANK YOU! It took a while but we got there.
The question itself is fair and extremely relevant (I will return to this (3)); the only thing dishonest about that question is your previous answer. Your first answer to that exact question was to “average” (10th November 2008 14:44 GMT ) but you had twisted and misquoted the question to suit your answer (remember you replaced the text ‘something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason’ with the very different term “noise”). Now you give a completely different answer to my exact the same question – your new answer of “you can’t” means that your previous answer of “averaging” was indeed wrong. And boom goes the dynamite. Letting the fireworks continue...
Does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component? "Yes.”
A bold answer, thank you, although it is lacking in any “real thought, real evidence and real truth” (remember those words?).
- How does the length of the sampling period properly cater for the lowest frequency component?
Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period " Such as what?”
Such as glacial and interglacial cycles; this should be really easy to guess at by anyone who has read the scientific papers on global cooling, and even by those who haven’t – heck I even gave you a bit of a hint: “Last ice age” – how can you not have realised that?
- Do you care to tell us how to average out the effects from external influences, such as glacial and interglacial cycles, when their cycle times are orders of magnitude greater than the averaging period?
“Because noise is the opposite of signal. Noise is the elements that hide the signal because their cause is unrelated so reducing the correlation unless longer sampling is done.”
Although what you say is correct (and proves your your answer to the earlier question can be wrong), you didn’t actually answer my question. Better yet, your new answer of “you can’t” not fitting with your "average" answer, in response to exactly the same question, demonstrates that “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason” indeed isn’t the same as “noise”. Therefore, simple logic dictates that the answer to the question: ‘ "How do we get from “something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason”, to “noise”?" ‘ cannot be answered because you cannot substitute the term as you have done.
“Have you read the reports from scientists on the global cooling in the 70's?
How many were there?
What external influence beyond the timescale is not taken into account in GCMs?”
Now for the good bit!
These are beyond what I wanted to discuss (2*), these being your lack of understanding of the application of the averaging process, as well as all this nicely explaining a good reason why there’s “a severe lack of evidence *against* it [AGW]” (your post 6th November 2008 16:57 GMT) – your new answer of “you can’t” accepts that there cannot be such evidence - which was my fundamental point (or agenda as you insist) from the very first word to you (3*) - QED.
If you had given the answer “you can’t” to my sole question to you within my first post, you wouldn’t have been made to look so stupid and disingenuous; at least the whole truth is out now.
Global warming might well be killing lemmings, but you’re the one who wilfully jumped off the cliff!
I despair of these Boffins ! We are to believe that a reduction in Lemmings is down to Global Warming. Where do they get this information from? I am not a believer in Global Warming theories anyway, and particularly when Lemmings are brought into the equation. I have yet to hear a convincing argument on Global Warming. If there is somebody out there has one, please let me know.
Dr Norman Webster
"How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason? "You can't.”
THANK YOU! It took a while but we got there."
Now, please show how this relates to AGW, the effect of CO2 on global temperatures by entrapment of LWR from the earth's surface and the known and measured fossil-fuel-only CO2 in the atmosphere?
"The only question I’ve not answered is whether I’ve read the papers. To be frank with you, I’m loathed to tell you if I’ve read them because" I like making shit up.
That is what you meant, yes?
I mean, if you're looking for me to "hijack" the conversation away from all the "errors" I like to spout, you don't WANT to hear answers, only your trolling.
"Such as glacial and interglacial cycles;" How does the RESULT of global climate change become a forcing *in* climate change?
"If you had given the answer “you can’t” to my sole question to you within my first post, you wouldn’t have been made to look so stupid and disingenuous; at least the whole truth is out now." But there is nothing about the question that applies. To use a common amorphism: What does that have to do with the price of tomatoes?
You cannot prove something that doesn't exist exists. But that has nothing to do with AGW. Because that exists.
Now if you wanted to talk about how you would prove that invisible pink unicorns exist, you should have said. But silly old me thought you wanted to talk about AGW. Something that does exist. And, existing, has a signal that can be teased out from the records.
So what do you want to talk about? Something that doesn't exist, or AGW?
... can be driven by climate scares ;c) (that was a joke, please don’t read anything into it)
As expected, you’re again trying to divert our debate from my original point without even acknowledging it. The majority of your questions do not need to be answered because this question is still outstanding:
- Why should I needlessly complicate this debate by bringing something which neither of us has questioned, has reason to dispute, and is irrelevant? (1*)
You’ve never proven any trolling from me, but I have repeatedly proven your disingenuous behaviour. Despite my repeated prompting, you never shown or explained how I was “talking bollocks”, where I “have lied”, or my “incorrect statement”; all these are your unjustified claims, so exactly who was trolling? You couldn’t even justify your position regarding your averaging (cycle times, sampling periods, shape of cycle, unknown position within the cycle) – and now I realise even your simple equation was fundamentally wrong (it only proves something that is there).
I’m going to spell this out, not necessarily for you (because your obviously a bit of a bigot – you’ve not acknowledged my fundamental point, let alone your averaging fubar) but for everyone else who may not have clicked.
Your opinion of the existence of AGW is your belief only. You don’t actually *know* that it exists, you merely think you do because others say it does (unless you’ve been out taking measurement with your thermometer for the last 100k years?). Given the fact that your posts are littered with insults, I fear you’re too deeply invested in AGW to be able to acknowledge this subtle yet surprisingly simple philosophical concept, let alone being capable of understanding it. You are committing the fallacies of appeal to authority (assuming they are genuine authorities) and appeal to popularity (so who is the “sad pathetic sheep”?) The fact that you’ve given a contradictory answer to the critical question indeed shows you don’t fully understand all the issues surrounding the general argument. It wouldn’t have mattered but you’re perpetuating your opinion as being factually correct.
It is clear from your prior posts that you were using the comparison of the weight of evidence of both sides as the main driving factor for justification of your opinion (for AGW). I spotted a flaw with that argument so that’s why I waded in.
>>> By Mark Posted Thursday 6th November 2008 16:57 GMT
“Go to the scientific journals. The evidence for AGW is there.
There's a severe lack of evidence *against* it,”
>>> By Steve Posted Saturday 8th November 2008 20:22 GMT (my first post in this thread)
“How does one prove something that isn’t there, [especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason, especially-especially when only one side gets the majority of funding and media attention?]”
After a lot of hoo-haa ...
>>> By Mark Posted Wednesday 12th November 2008 09:04 GMT
“You can't.”
I have successfully got you to accept it isn’t possible to get evidence to prove the lack of AGW (even before considering confounding factors of external influences). Hence, when disregarding the actual existence of AGW, it is inherent that the weight of evidence will be stacked in favour of the AGW argument. Therefore, you cannot cite the lack of evidence against AGW as indication/proof that the argument for AGW is stronger, let alone for proof of AGW. That’s all I wanted to demonstrate; hopefully you now understand your opinion a little bit better.
If you do not counter this (assuming you have understood it), then you must also accept that reliance on the IPCC consensus is equally flawed.
Please note, I’m not claiming that AGW does or doesn’t exist (I’m not a climate expert, but I’ve already suggested that it likely is, the real problem being “scale”), nor will I for now, but I did already say “I do worry that we could be f***ing our planet” so I want us all to ensure we are doing the right thing. To do that we need to know we have right reasons. To know this we need to apply critical thinking (which was the driving force of my contribution). Can anyone disagree with that sentiment?
“I have yet to hear a convincing argument on Global Warming. If there is somebody out there has one, please let me know.”
Did you mean to say ‘man-made global warming’ or are you going further than that?
Now, I’m not going to get involved with examination of such evidence, to do so would require the assumption that the writer was being truthful with their data and use of it; that’s difficult given the behaviour of the pro-AGW posters in this thread. It would be wrong to claim such a link, but it does encourage one to be sceptical and there’s nothing wrong with being a sceptic - in fact the widely accepted scientific principle demands such scepticism.
What we need is raw data to be accessible to all and for it to be corroborated, not models, reports and summaries.
Anyway, I think it mighty strange that the poster most vocal for AGW hasn’t actually given links to any data, let alone scientific papers. Surely that would be the thing he should do?
"I have successfully got you to accept it isn’t possible to get evidence to prove the lack of AGW"
Isn't possible to get evidence to prove the lack of AGW?
This means it would not be possible to prove AGW doesn't exist.
But how is that the question you asked:
"How does one prove something that isn’t there, especially when it is swamped by something that is there but for a completely unrelated reason?"
This would be (if the "something that isn't there" was, in your estimation AGW) it isn't possible to get evidence to prove AGW exists. Which is the opposite of what your nether regions have splurted out on this site just above.
Note also, this is not the case. the "something that isn't there" is not AGW. Therefore "you can't" is not even admitting that you can't prove AGW.
You need to brush up on your trolling. You seem to have fucked up by being too clever by half in hiding your message with multiple negatives.
Please try again.
And this time, take a shit before you type.
My trolling? You have clearly claimed that I was “talking bollocks”, I “have lied” and gave an “incorrect statement” yet you’ve still not acknowledged my request for proof of any of these; is this not the height of contemptuous behaviour? Would I be wrong to claim all of those of you?
“This would be (if the "something that isn't there" was, in your estimation AGW) it isn't possible to get evidence to prove AGW exists. Which is the opposite of what your nether regions have splurted out on this site just above.”
Of course it’s the opposite of what I stated, that’s because I’ve have made no such claim. Why on earth you think that response is relevant I don’t know.
“Note also, this is not the case. the "something that isn't there" is not AGW. Therefore "you can't" is not even admitting that you can't prove AGW.”
I know. I didn’t claim or hint that was the case, nor do I need to. There is no logical relevance to my original question.
“You seem to have fucked up by being too clever by half”
Only “seem” to? You mean you can’t be sure? To highlight your hypocrisy, here are your answers to an exact same question:
1) “Well, noise being what we call "randomly distributed" cancels out when you average.”
2) “you can’t”
Do you care to explain that little boo-boo?
My previous post to you was really simple; your attempt to obfuscate the issue with your own irrelevant additional negatives is mere sophistry. I did say you wouldn’t be able to understand or accept the philosophical concept I explained, it seems that has come to pass too. This is further supported by your increasingly offensive language; do you not worry that your gratuitous insults reflect badly on you and possibly on anyone else who shares your opinions?
(... literally as well as metaphorically)
I thought I would be fair and wait a couple of days before I respond, in case you had a reply forthcoming.
Your comment not being posted is due to one of these reasons:
1) You screwed it up (not surprising considering your immature behaviour),
2) It fell below the level expected by the moderators. (not surprising considering your increasingly offensive behaviour),
3) You are simply claiming it wasn’t posted and using it as an excuse for an escape route.
It can’t be the moderators getting irritated by our ping-pong because your subsequent comment got through, as did this response from me.
What I find really telling is that, for whatever reason, no subsequent comment from you appeared even though you clearly had something to say (a civil comment would have been published of course) – for me this also makes option 3 very likely. Whatever the reason, this reflects very poorly on you.
For many people, issues such as AGW are a religion: [it] MUST be so (even though they don’t actually know if [it] exists) and [it] cannot be questioned; hence [it] becomes a matter of mere faith. Those whose faith is questioned are usually those most likely to go on the offensive – in both senses of the word!
"What I find really telling is that, for whatever reason, no subsequent comment from you appeared "
All I said was, by quoting your past utterances, you have said these exact words:
I believe in AGW.
For some reason this did not get through. If it still doesn't, then you'll be wrong but I will be unable to tell you this.
“you have said these exact words:
I believe in AGW.”
If I had “said these exact words” then I would have shown myself to be a believer of AGW; obviously those weren’t my exact words - yes that’s yet another misquote. My words were actually:
‘Your opinion of the existence of AGW is your belief only’
Yes, it is saying the same thing, but your quote was hardly “exact words” was it?
“For some reason this did not get through. If it still doesn't, then you'll be wrong but I will be unable to tell you this.”
This is jumbled up nonsense. Were you questioning my acceptance of something I have already proven (which would obviously be a nonsensical thing to say), or was in regarding your post not being published? Either way, it would be a non-sequitur to say I will “be wrong” about it.
Here are your actual words on the matter: "[But that has nothing to do with] AGW. Because that exists." [12th November 2008 21:31 GMT] - you’ve nailed your colours to your mast. This is the point: you cannot be sure of it; all you have if belief of it due to the so-called ‘consensus’ and weight of evidence (which you’ve accepted would be biased towards AGW regardless of the actually presence of AGW). To repeat what I’ve already said, "You are committing the fallacies of appeal to authority (assuming they are genuine authorities) and appeal to popularity" [13th November 2008 13:21 GMT]; that was another statement that went uncountered and unacknowledged. There is your “assumption without basis”!
Is belief in something one obviously doesn't understand a noble thing? Should such opinions be taken seriously?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
