Transparency and Climate Change

[SeattleFightFan]

ok i found it. http://room604.wikispaces.com/file/v...+H.+Lapham.pdf. this is a good article (hard to read online - easier to print) about what happens when peoples "misremember" history. or better yet simply choose to create their own myth.

about the west.

As with the snapshots sent home to
Mom and Dad from a winter vacation
in Hawaii, the postcards from an illusory
American past—the innocent Arcadia
over the rainbow of the midnineteenth-
century Western frontier,
the classless society that is the root of
fair-minded free enterprise and all things
innovative and entrepreneurial—don’t
mention any unpleasantness or inconvenience.
The pioneers going west in
the 1840s carried with them the promise
of a land of milk and honey into what
proved to be a desert; the 2,000-mile
length of the Oregon Trail was littered
with abandoned wagons and newly furnished
graves. The juvenile delinquents
at play in the sandbox towns of Deadwood
and Nacogdoches didn’t challenge
one another to heroic duels in the sun;
best business practice was to shoot the
scoundrel in the back, at long range and
with a rifle. Fortunes were to be found
in four fields of endeavor (cattle, mining,
timber, land), all of them dependent on
government subsidy. The romance of
the West so fondly embraced by President
Ronald Reagan—Stetson hat silhouetted
against the studio-backdrop
sky of the new morning in America—
was the invention of the literary East,
the early scripts drafted by nineteenthcentury
Ivy League swells (Francis Parkman,
Owen Wister, Teddy Roosevelt,
Frederic Remington), the subsequent
production values supplied by immigrant
film merchants arriving in Hollywood
in the 1910s from
Warsaw and Minsk.

the part i like best, and hadn't really thought of before, is this sentence:

"Fortunes were to be found in four fields of endeavor (cattle, mining, timber, land), all of them dependent on government subsidy."

that made me re-think a lot. and he's right. i just hadn't thought about it that way before.

hope you enjoy Oma. happy t-day

[Gotti McCarran]

That discussion sure killed this thread.

[texas1willy2]

Originally Posted by Gotti McCarran

That discussion sure killed this thread.

this thread wasn't going anywhere, you ought to know that

[Gotti McCarran]

Originally Posted by texas1willy2

this thread wasn't going anywhere, you ought to know that

You're right. Give it a week and the warmists will claim the exact opposite of this is true. And then they will say it rained in the Sahara and call everyone that doubts it stupid. O.k. that was a strawman argument. Maybe they'll just make another video in which the heads of some skeptical children are detonated instead.

[Gotti McCarran]

Holy shit, perfectly on cue:



Bwahahaha, oh you warmistas...

From comments on youtube it

seems the girl is actress Yara Sayeh Shahidi who starred alongside Eddie Murphy in Imagine that.

Apparently she didn't need glasses to act in that movie either. Oh well, what's new. Just funny that the minute I say that, there goes the next warmista total non-science public relations project on youtube. They just can't help themselves.

[Mae]

Gotti, may I ask for a short version of what you believe in regards to climate change? I know you don't believe it is man-made, but how do you explain it? Obviously we are in a warming interglacial period of the current ice age, but do you think that alone can account for the levels we are reaching? If so, which natural processes in specific do you think is predominately responsible? Thanks.

[Gotti McCarran]

Originally Posted by Mae

Gotti, may I ask for a short version of what you believe in regards to climate change?

The climate changes. We don't know how much of it is due to man, because the records are too short, used to be kept shitty (HarryReadme file gives a clue), are adjusted all the time (current up and old down) and often misrepresented with cherry picked starting and end-points. It doesn't help that we are talking about an almost infinitely complicated chaotic system, we don't understand and may never fully understand. The ocean is not taken into account enough and likewise the sun. Everything is attributed to CO2, although it's been shown time and again that while CO2 influences temperatures it is clearly mostly rising and going down as an effect to temperature changes. It's an effect, not a cause. Politicization and green advocacy is out of control with the IPCC and billion dollar incentives. The debate is mostly buried under layers of public relations and constructive criticism is called denial and likened to denying the holocaust. It is attributed to mental illness, oil industry shilling and other such unsubstantiated nonsense. From physics we know that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 1 degree. (1.2 seems to be what most strict physicists came up with). I think that may well be spot on. About half that has been realized either way. It's possible that it may be slightly more or even less, but the invoked positive water feedback is unsubstantiated non-science that has no roots in science. Reversing the null hypothesis is unscientific as well. It holds no water to say, if it's not CO2, then give us a better theory. Science doesn't work like that. You don't need to do more then to prove a theory is wrong in order to eliminate the validity of said theory. There is o requirement to present a different theory. That brings me to my next point. A scientific theory needs to be testable and falsifiable. If that's not the case, then it's not a scientific theory. If we are outside of the boundaries of the theory (forecasts for example), then the theory is done. There is no science that says if temperatures fail to go up as predicted for 15 years and the temperature is outside of the error bars of older predictions, that this is o.k. and it needs to do this for 20 years, 30 years or wherever it will be pushed to next. Results are outside of the error bars = wrong model PERIOD.

The weather will change is not a testable and falsifiable hypothesis for example. The weather always changes just like the climate does.

Even the whole concept of a global temperature is pretty wild to be honest. That's like a concept of an average speed for all molecules. What predictability does this really have? If we had an average speed value, could you seriously use this and say that it would make life dangerous for those traveling particularly fast, like Usain Bolt is in trouble man? If average speeds keep going up, he may run faster than his hamstrings can take. Why does that seem obviously stupid yet a local thing like temperature can be extrapolated to global values? Sometimes we ill in average temperatures for areas bigger than LA from one thermometer, etc. That shit makes no sense. Currently you get 60° Celcius in the desert and -40° Celcius at the poles. There are people living at pole stations and in the desert. How is an average of 15.6° more dangerous than 15.2°? I don't see it.

Originally Posted by Mae

I know you don't believe it is man-made,

The problem already starts here. What is this it you speak of? I've seen nothing at all that was out of the ordinary anywhere I looked.

Originally Posted by Mae

but how do you explain it?

How do I explain what?

Originally Posted by Mae

Obviously we are in a warming interglacial period of the current ice age, but do you think that alone can account for the levels we are reaching?

Levels of what? If you mean the half degree of warming in the last century, yes it absolutely could account for all of it. Temperatures have risen faster over a dozen times in recorded history. This was accepted science before a governmental panel started crying wolf. I don't believe the warming is all natural though. I believe anthropogenic CO2 rise may be responsible for about half of that half degree of warming. I just don't see that as anything worth paying hundreds of billions for, much less trillions.

Originally Posted by Mae

If so, which natural processes in specific do you think is predominately responsible? Thanks.

It has to be a combination of hundreds of factors and their respective feedbacks. There is absolutely no way to scientifically answer this question as we can't set up test earths in a lab to fiddle around with. We are talking a chaotic system with many dozens of degrees of freedom. It won't be possible to model this accurately. I personally think that the oceans and the sun control our climate moreso than the trace gas CO2 does. I think the idea that it is the thermostat to our planet is ridiculous. I don't think it is a particularly strong argument to say, after tuning a model in which CO2 has a strong impact to best replicate the past temperature, we can take this strong impact out after the fact and it won't replicate the climate well any more. I think that is just ridiculous and doesn't prove shit.

And so on and so forth....