"Lost" read the other way
Bob
have had to say as clues about "Lost", but now I realize the show can
be read the other way as a commentary.
The story of Jesus Christ is conventionally interpreted the Biblic, or
what I could call the George Romero, way, where the dead walk the
earth. There has long been speculation about an alternative -- that
his death was faked. But "Lost" can be read as raising 2 more
possibilities.
The first would be substitution by a double that he was aware of and
expected to happen. The second, more intriguing, would be that he
expected to fake his death but was killed for real and subbed for by a
double that he didn't know about. In either case, the one who died
could be the one of whom most of the stories of his supposed life were
true, or could've been a fall guy -- a last minute substitute -- or
something in between, where the substitution occurred one or more
times previously in his life course.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
thinbluemime
Why do you think the Jewish leaders after the crucifixion were scared
shiht zu less? Was it because a harmless body double was walking around
Jerusalem preaching the good news of plastic surgery? Nay, says I.
Why were the Roman guards bribed to say the body was stolen during the
night watch as they slept on guard duty, an offense subject to the death
penalty?
And what about the other ressurections of the hundreds of righteous dead
that also rose at the same time and roamed the hillsides of the Temple
Mount?
It could be a Biblical account of the Romero Lost Zombie season....
Nay, says i.
The messianic Locke was hanged on a cross outside Dharmaville, home of the
Dharma-lites. Home of the roaming red heifer, home of the walking dead,
home of a temple we have yet to see clearly, but with a spoiler promise of
a visit by Locke.
Will Locke overturn the Temple rituals?
Yea, says i.
"Welcome to the i-land"
Kevin Provance
background.
--
2025
If you do not believe in time travel,
your beliefs are about to be tempered.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=43606237254
"thinbluemime" <thinbl...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:op.u44uyq2n2hx80n@experience...
thinbluemime
<kevin@remove_tpasoft_remove.com> wrote:
> Both of you...when I read your posts, I hear cookoo clocks going of in
> the background.
>
That's OK, we will prey for you to increase your lithium.
--------------------
Girls just wanna have fu-un
Boys just wanna have a measuring stick
solarr
On Dec 18, 5:18 am, Bob <robg...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> Up to now I'd been thinking of what various real world speculations
> have had to say as clues about "Lost", but now I realize the show can
> be read the other way as a commentary.
>
> The story of Jesus Christ is conventionally interpreted the Biblic, or
> what I could call the George Romero, way, where the dead walk the
> earth. There has long been speculation about an alternative -- that
> his death was faked.
You must of come across "The Passover Plot" at one time or another! :
;-)
-/< /\ />-
Kevin Provance
| On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:38:18 -0500, Kevin Provance
| <kevin@remove_tpasoft_remove.com> wrote:
|
| > Both of you...when I read your posts, I hear cookoo clocks going of in
| > the background.
| >
|
| That's OK, we will prey for you to increase your lithium.
First off, nimrod, I already used that bit about you taking your lithium
(although copycating certainly appears to be your thing), second, it's
spelled pray, not prey, unless of course you are describing what you do to
this NG.
Third, and most importantly, praying is just another form of insanity since
no one is really listening.
number6
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:38:18 -0500, Kevin Provance
>
> <kevin@remove_tpasoft_remove.com> wrote:
> > Both of you...when I read your posts, I hear cookoo clocks going of in
> > the background.
>
> That's OK, we will prey for you to increase your lithium.
>
I love it when a typo can have much more meaning than the
intention ...
thinbluemime
> On Dec 18, 9:22ï¿œam, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:38:18 -0500, Kevin Provance
>>
>> <kevin@remove_tpasoft_remove.com> wrote:
>> > Both of you...when I read your posts, I hear cookoo clocks going of
>> in ￜ
>> > the background.
>>
>> That's OK, we will prey for you to increase your lithium.
>>
>
> I love it when a typo can have much more meaning than the
> intention ...
I am such a pour typist, you can never really tail :)
jojo
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 06:18:21 -0500, Bob <robg...@bestweb.net> wrote:
> > Up to now I'd been thinking of what various real world speculations
> > have had to say as clues about "Lost", but now I realize the show can
> > be read the other way as a commentary.
>
> > The story of Jesus Christ is conventionally interpreted the Biblic, or
> > what I could call the George Romero, way, where the dead walk the
> > earth. There has long been speculation about an alternative -- that
> > his death was faked. But "Lost" can be read as raising 2 more
> > possibilities.
>
> > The first would be substitution by a double that he was aware of and
> > expected to happen. The second, more intriguing, would be that he
> > expected to fake his death but was killed for real and subbed for by a
> > double that he didn't know about. In either case, the one who died
> > could be the one of whom most of the stories of his supposed life were
> > true, or could've been a fall guy -- a last minute substitute -- or
> > something in between, where the substitution occurred one or more
> > times previously in his life course.
>
> > Bobbo in the Bronxo
>
> Why do you think the Jewish leaders after the crucifixion were scared
> shiht zu less? Was it because a harmless body double was walking around
> Jerusalem preaching the good news of plastic surgery? Nay, says I.
>
Well, sorry to be the one who tell you that but it never happened.
> Why were the Roman guards bribed to say the body was stolen during the
> night watch as they slept on guard duty, an offense subject to the death
> penalty?
>
Once again, it never happened.
> And what about the other ressurections of the hundreds of righteous dead
> that also rose at the same time and roamed the hillsides of the Temple
> Mount?
>
Well, if it had happened, somebody would have noticed. So here again,
we can say it never happened.
thinbluemime
>> > The story of Jesus Christ is conventionally interpreted the Biblic, or
>> > what I could call the George Romero, way, where the dead walk the
>> > earth. ï¿œThere has long been speculation about an alternative -- that
>> > his death was faked. ï¿œBut "Lost" can be read as raising 2 more
>> > possibilities.
>>
>> > The first would be substitution by a double that he was aware of and
>> > expected to happen. ï¿œThe second, more intriguing, would be that he
>> > expected to fake his death but was killed for real and subbed for by a
>> > double that he didn't know about. ï¿œIn either case, the one who died
>> > could be the one of whom most of the stories of his supposed life were
>> > true, or could've been a fall guy -- a last minute substitute -- or
>> > something in between, where the substitution occurred one or more
>> > times previously in his life course.
>>
>> > Bobbo in the Bronxo
>>
>> Why do you think the Jewish leaders after the crucifixion were scared ￜ
>> shiht zu less? Was it because a harmless body double was walking around
>> ￜ
>> Jerusalem preaching the good news of plastic surgery? Nay, says I.
>
> Well, sorry to be the one who tell you that but it never happened.
>
>> Why were the Roman guards bribed to say the body was stolen during the ￜ
>> night watch as they slept on guard duty, an offense subject to the
>> death ￜ
>> penalty?
>>
>
> Once again, it never happened.
>
>> And what about the other resurrections of the hundreds of righteous
>> dead ￜ
>> that also rose at the same time and roamed the hillsides of the Temple ￜ
>> Mount?
> Well, if it had happened, somebody would have noticed. So here again,
> we can say it never happened.
Lost is a story of redemption that revolves around two themes that some
would call polar opposites; science and faith.
While science deals with concepts that can be seen, measured, and
duplicated, faith deals in variables of the unknown.
But both science and faith use evidence to support a belief system.
When the evidence gathered in either discipline is faulty or purposely
skewed, it can lead to a belief system that produces disciples that preach
error.
Much like the scientific community's recent Climategate emails have
revealed.
In a free and open society, truth is highly desirable. But a wide
acceptance of various beliefs is tolerated and even encouraged, to promote
the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit does not impinge upon
others freedoms, then even belief systems that are not traditional or
conventional are tolerated.
Two thousand year old documents that have been intensely studied and peer
reviewed is evidence for a belief system. Whether you believe them or not
is your choice, in your pursuit of happiness, which I whole heartily
endorse.
Darren Delgado
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:58:37 -0500, jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > The story of Jesus Christ is conventionally interpreted the Biblic, or
> >> > what I could call the George Romero, way, where the dead walk the
> >> > his death was faked. But "Lost" can be read as raising 2 more
> >> > possibilities.
>
> >> > The first would be substitution by a double that he was aware of and
> >> > expected to fake his death but was killed for real and subbed for by a
> >> > could be the one of whom most of the stories of his supposed life were
> >> > true, or could've been a fall guy -- a last minute substitute -- or
> >> > something in between, where the substitution occurred one or more
> >> > times previously in his life course.
>
> >> > Bobbo in the Bronxo
>
> >> Why do you think the Jewish leaders after the crucifixion were scared
> >>
>
> > Well, sorry to be the one who tell you that but it never happened.
>
> >> Why were the Roman guards bribed to say the body was stolen during the
> >> death
>
> > Once again, it never happened.
>
> >> And what about the other resurrections of the hundreds of righteous
> >> dead
> > Well, if it had happened, somebody would have noticed. So here again,
> > we can say it never happened.
>
> Lost is a story of redemption that revolves around two themes that some
> would call polar opposites; science and faith.
> While science deals with concepts that can be seen, measured, and
> duplicated, faith deals in variables of the unknown.
>
> But both science and faith use evidence to support a belief system.
No they don't. Faith not only implies the absence of evidence, it
prides itself on it.
> When the evidence gathered in either discipline is faulty or purposely
> skewed, it can lead to a belief system that produces disciples that preach
> error.
>
> Much like the scientific community's recent Climategate emails have
> revealed.
Good job spreading right-wing propaganda in addition to your usual
bullshit.
There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate". It's was a glimpse of a
political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
futile discussion because that will pretty much happen no matter what.
What's going to be coming next to this group direct from the right-
wing shit-pipe through your keyboard? Next we will probably be
hearing that Bush saved everyone from terrorism and black people are
the real racists.
> In a free and open society, truth is highly desirable. But a wide
> acceptance of various beliefs is tolerated and even encouraged, to promote
> the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit does not impinge upon
> others freedoms, then even belief systems that are not traditional or
> conventional are tolerated.
True, but it's a little hard to make people place their trust in
empirical science when nutbags run around all over the media screaming
that science is lying and we should all trust the voice of the deity
that they hear in their heads.
> Two thousand year old documents that have been intensely studied and peer
> reviewed is evidence for a belief system. Whether you believe them or not
> is your choice, in your pursuit of happiness, which I whole heartily
> endorse.
That's very sweet of you. However the original poster was pointing
out that what is contained in those documents is fictional bullshit
and does not hold up to any real scrutiny, it's laughable. You didn't
address that claim, instead opting for cheesy platitudes about how
everyone's beliefs are equally valid and awesome, therefore your post
is irrelevant to the discussion.
Jim Gysin
Darren Delgado sent the following on 12/21/2009 1:16 PM:
> There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate".
Of course there is. If there weren't, those busted wouldn't have felt
compelled to spin their words and do damage control. Even *they* knew
the import of their statements.
> It's was a glimpse of a
> political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
Exactly. And there should be no political consideration given to the
generation or dissemination of scientific data. That sort of
manipulation or massaging of facts and data would get an undergrad
kicked out of the science program of any reputable university. In the
real world, sadly, it's just business as usual in a "tell the people who
are funding and your car payments you what they want to hear" sort of way.
> so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
> futile discussion because that will pretty much happen no matter what.
Those busted were doing enough distorting for everyone.
Note that I'm not defending thinblue here. I would hate to get a
reputation for that. :)
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
Jim Gysin sent the following on 12/21/2009 3:03 PM:
> In the
> real world, sadly, it's just business as usual in a "tell the people who
> are funding and your car payments you what they want to hear" sort of way.
That should read: "'tell the people who are funding you and your car
payments what they want to hear' sort of way."
Kevin Provance
"Darren Delgado" <darren...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a4e9880c-e0ce-4aa5...@n31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate". It's was a glimpse of a
political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
futile discussion because that will pretty much happen no matter what.
========================
I don't understand why the general public need to suffix ever damned scandal
or fraud with "gate". Yeah, I get that it's a carry over from Watergate,
but c'mon...that was the name of of motel. This-gate, that-gate, blah blah.
That was Nixon's real sin, forcing us with the "gate" stigma forever when
describing fraud.
Why not just call a fraud a fraud and be done with it. <g>
jojo
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:58:37 -0500, jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > The story of Jesus Christ is conventionally interpreted the Biblic, or
> >> > what I could call the George Romero, way, where the dead walk the
> >> > his death was faked. But "Lost" can be read as raising 2 more
> >> > possibilities.
>
> >> > The first would be substitution by a double that he was aware of and
> >> > expected to fake his death but was killed for real and subbed for by a
> >> > could be the one of whom most of the stories of his supposed life were
> >> > true, or could've been a fall guy -- a last minute substitute -- or
> >> > something in between, where the substitution occurred one or more
> >> > times previously in his life course.
>
> >> > Bobbo in the Bronxo
>
> >> Why do you think the Jewish leaders after the crucifixion were scared
> >>
>
> > Well, sorry to be the one who tell you that but it never happened.
>
> >> Why were the Roman guards bribed to say the body was stolen during the
> >> death
>
> > Once again, it never happened.
>
> >> And what about the other resurrections of the hundreds of righteous
> >> dead
> > Well, if it had happened, somebody would have noticed. So here again,
> > we can say it never happened.
>
> Lost is a story of redemption that revolves around two themes that some
> would call polar opposites; science and faith.
> While science deals with concepts that can be seen, measured, and
> duplicated, faith deals in variables of the unknown.
>
> But both science and faith use evidence to support a belief system.
>
> When the evidence gathered in either discipline is faulty or purposely
> skewed, it can lead to a belief system that produces disciples that preach
> error.
>
> Much like the scientific community's recent Climategate emails have
> revealed.
>
> In a free and open society, truth is highly desirable. But a wide
> acceptance of various beliefs is tolerated and even encouraged, to promote
> the pursuit of happiness. As long as that pursuit does not impinge upon
> others freedoms, then even belief systems that are not traditional or
> conventional are tolerated.
>
> Two thousand year old documents that have been intensely studied and peer
> reviewed is evidence for a belief system. Whether you believe them or not
> is your choice, in your pursuit of happiness, which I whole heartily
> endorse.
>
This has nothing to do with that. First I am not an atheist. In case
you don't know, there are other religions than Christianity in the
world. Don't look far. Maybe you heard of Islam and Judaism. Both
don't believe in Jesus's resurrection (Islam - he was never killed) or
don't even care about Jesus existence at all (Judaism).
Of course you can believe whatever you want, I respect Christian
faith. But this is a Lost forum not a Jesus forum, so don't present
your faith as facts.
jojo
> On Dec 21, 6:28 am, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > Much like the scientific community's recent Climategate emails have
> > revealed.
>
> Good job spreading right-wing propaganda in addition to your usual
> bullshit.
>
> There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate". It's was a glimpse of a
> political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
> so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
> futile discussion because that will pretty much happen no matter what.
>
I am not right wing (not in the US meaning at least) and I do not
agree with you. So do not many scientists. And when Europe and part of
the US are under the coldest winter recorded in centuries, global
warming theory looks pretty unconvincing.
Darren Delgado
Wait, let me get this straight. You really don't know the difference
between "weather" and "climate"? You think "global warming" means
there will never be a cold day on the planet Earth again?
Nah, you're bluffing. No one is that stupid.
Darren Delgado
> Darren Delgado sent the following on 12/21/2009 1:16 PM:
>
> > There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate".
>
> Of course there is. If there weren't, those busted wouldn't have felt
> compelled to spin their words and do damage control. Even *they* knew
> the import of their statements.
They're not spinning their words. They're un-spinning them. Which is
necessary because FOX News et al. have been quoting them completely
out of context. Also, completely independent third parties have
chimed in to verify their correct parsings of their own words in
science-speak.
> > It's was a glimpse of a
> > political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
>
> Exactly. And there should be no political consideration given to the
> generation or dissemination of scientific data. That sort of
> manipulation or massaging of facts and data would get an undergrad
> kicked out of the science program of any reputable university.
There was no manipulation of data. If you think there was then you're
not following the unfolding story.
What is the scam here? 97% of the world's climatologists conspire to
perpetuate a global warming hoax on the population of the world, in
order to... _________ ?
> In the real world, sadly, it's just business as usual in a "tell the people who
> are funding and your car payments you what they want to hear" sort of way.
Really? You honestly believe that 97% of the world's climatologists
are all lying about global warming, in a massive conspiracy to reap
the massive financial rewards earned by a research grant; while Glenn
Beck is the honest and truthful standard bearer exposing the truth in
defense of the downtrodden corporate polluters?
I find that a tad hard to believe that you believe that.
> > so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
> > futile discussion because that will pretty much happen no matter what.
>
> Those busted were doing enough distorting for everyone.
Busted doing what? Absolutely nothing, if you actually read what was
written in the e-mails you're talking about, vs. selected bites
completely out of context.
This is a lot like the Dan Rather bullshit "scandal".
1. Right wing nuts realize that there is a massive amount of evidence
that George Bush went AWOL. So,
2. ...to distract everyone, they focus on one piece of poorly vetted
evidence that Dan Rather put forward and act like this invalidates the
whole case.
3. "This one piece of paper has a small error in it, therefore George
Bush was never AWOL. (Ignore anything else related to the case and
focus on this.)"
They realize that they will never make a reasonable case against
pretty much every scientist in the world, so they make a lot of noise
about some bullshit in an e-mail and twist the words around, and go,
"ergo, global warming does not exist (ignore 97% of the world's
experts on this topic, plus all the mountains of evidence showing that
man-made global warming is a worldwide crisis)."
However, in this case, it's even worse because at least that one piece
of evidence related to Bush was in fact forged. In this case, the e-
mails they claim to contain lies, really don't, they're just parsing
words in a disingenuous way within the context of the convo.
thinbluemime
> This has nothing to do with that. First I am not an atheist. In case
> you don't know, there are other religions than Christianity in the
> world. Don't look far. Maybe you heard of Islam and Judaism. Both
> don't believe in Jesus's resurrection (Islam - he was never killed) or
> don't even care about Jesus existence at all (Judaism).
> Of course you can believe whatever you want, I respect Christian
> faith. But this is a Lost forum not a Jesus forum, so don't present
> your faith as facts.
Excellent! An acquaintance with the Abrahamic traditions is a good
foundation for understanding Lost.
"None of this Is-real" - John Locke
Alleged Virgin Birth
Visited By a Wise-Guy
Three Year Mission
Accused the Leaders of Being Hypocrite and Pharisee
Foretold his Death
Pierced in his Side
Murdered by the Accused Pharisee
Hanged on a Cross
Resurrected From the Dead
Wished You Believed Me Note from John 316
He Who Will Save Us All
From John on a Cross to John in a Box, who do you think John Locke might
represent?
"Welcome To The i-land"
-----------------------------
If there is power in the blood, how much power would there be in a blood
filter?
Bob
> "None of this Is-real" - John Locke
> Visited By a Wise-Guy
Actually he IS a wise guy, standing for The Comedian of "Watchmen".
> Hanged on a Cross
That detail I didn't catch. Was the cross a shadow from the window?
> From John on a Cross to John in a Box, who do you think John Locke might
> represent?
From hanging to wearing a black friar's outfit, the Terry O'Quinn
characters represent Roberto Calvi. In the box, he represents an
unnamed figure from "The Wrong Box". As a Hunter, he stands for Ruth,
the She-Devil. Jesus Christ, the combination of allusions sure is
funny!
Bobbo in the Bronxo
thinbluemime
>> Hanged on a Cross
> That detail I didn't catch. Was the cross a shadow from the window?
No. John Locke/Jeremy Bentham was literally hanged on a cross.
http://www.lostdude.com/lostpics/Lost.S05E07/Lost.s05e07.The.Life.and.Death.of.Jeremy.Bentham.jpg
>> From John on a Cross to John in a Box, who do you think John Locke
>> might represent?
>
> From hanging to wearing a black friar's outfit, the Terry O'Quinn
> characters represent Roberto Calvi. In the box, he represents an
> unnamed figure from "The Wrong Box". As a Hunter, he stands for Ruth,
> the She-Devil. Jesus Christ, the combination of allusions sure is funny!
The Jewish sanctuary/tabernacle/temple contained the ark of the covenant,
the ever present 'god in a box'
Jesus Christ claimed equality with god. That was the primary reason he was
crucified, he committed blashemy in the eyes of the Jewish religious
leaders. "Before Abraham was, I AM"
If Christ was god as he clearly claimed, then the god on the cross was the
very same "I AM", the god in a box.
John Locke was both hanged and boxed. Hanged by Benny, and boxed by Ilana.
And all the while the Lost writers are taking a whimsical approach to a
serious reprimand of the i-land.
"Biological, Chemical, Nuclear Weapons, Oh My!"
Bob
> No. John Locke/Jeremy Bentham was literally hanged on a cross.http://www.lostdude.com/lostpics/Lost.S05E07/Lost.s05e07.The.Life.and...
D'oh! I'd forgotten or missed completely that detail. And I forgot
to mention in my last post that Bentham's death pose, followed by the
shot of the Moon, is of Dr. Manhattan as he would be if the frames in
one scene that had fragments of him were put together as one. Plus,
Jeremy Bentham represents...Jeremy Bentham in death, if we understand
his wax head to indicate prior manipulation by plastic surgery.
People around here are going to be very surprised when the "shape
shifting magick" on "Lost" turns out to be skilled manipulation by one
or more surgeons.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
jojo
Again this stupid line of arguments ? Strangely it works only one way.
When it's hot, all the warmists explain that this is a proof of global
warming. When it is cold, of course, this has nothing to do with it.
Well, if you think global warming climate has no influence on the
weather, maybe you should learn about what climate is.
In the meantime, many scientists, among the greatest, do not believe
in AGW. They may be be wrong, but they may be right. There is a
scientific debate, that is not closed (and in fact, by definition,
can't be closed if you know how science works). I don't know who is
right, but I am quite certain that the propagandists on both sides are
wrong.
solarr
If you are really interested in what "climategate" is all about the
Harry readme file is a good place to start:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
And if you are looking for a fairly rational discussion of what was in
the hacked or stolen (use whichever verb fits your particular
political persuasion ;-) files try:
http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/the-harry-read_me-file/
This issue is too important for the usual Fox vs MSNBC, liberal vs
conservative type of invective. It may be too much to ask in what has
become such an emotional issue, but what we all really should be doing
is trying to find out what the Truth is.
If anyone has found a site that actually *has* all the files, please
let me know, I would love to read them and then decide for myself
what's what.
solarr
Also, I found an on-line copy of one of the best articles I have ever
read on global warming in the "New York Review of Books" by Freeman
Dyson here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
Now, back to "Lost"! ;-)
-/< /\ />-
thinbluemime
I agree, it a VERY important issue. The files and a little commentary can
be found here.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/acc6a0bf0ce971ec
(Complete with a Bob Dylan reference :)
solarr
On Dec 23, 11:28 am, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I agree, it a VERY important issue. The files and a little commentary can
> be found here.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.tv.lost/msg/acc6a0bf0ce971ec
Thanks, thin. For a minute, I thought I was going to have to spend 10
bucks to get them. >:-(
For anyone else who wants to download these files, all you have to do
is wait about a minute and the free download will be enabled. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
Darren Delgado
> On Dec 22, 4:27 pm, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 2:07 am, jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 21, 9:16 pm, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 21, 6:28 am, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Much like the scientific community's recent Climategate emails have
> > > > > revealed.
>
> > > > Good job spreading right-wing propaganda in addition to your usual
> > > > bullshit.
>
> > > > There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate". It's was a glimpse of a
> > > > political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
> > > > so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
> > > > futile discussion because that will pretty much happen no matter what.
>
> > > I am not right wing (not in the US meaning at least) and I do not
> > > agree with you. So do not many scientists. And when Europe and part of
> > > the US are under the coldest winter recorded in centuries, global
> > > warming theory looks pretty unconvincing.
> > Wait, let me get this straight. You really don't know the difference
> > between "weather" and "climate"? You think "global warming" means
> > there will never be a cold day on the planet Earth again?
>
> > Nah, you're bluffing. No one is that stupid.
>
> Again this stupid line of arguments ? Strangely it works only one way.
> When it's hot, all the warmists explain that this is a proof of global
> warming. When it is cold, of course, this has nothing to do with it.
Nobody who uses one-day or one-year temperatures to try to prove
anything should be taken seriously, no matter what side of the debate
they are on. It's just plain old stupidity. Weather isn't climate.
jojo
Weather is not climate but climate influences the weather, that's all
the point.
Anyway, you are right, one year temperatures do not prove anything and
I don't even belong to one "side", I have no definite opinion, but I
can't stand the apocalyptic AGW activists who claim that if I don't
stop using my car now and eating meat, we are all going to die ... in
200 years.
Darren Delgado
Who told you to stop using your car? The people you're talking about
don't exist, they're caricatures of environmentalists, they are straw
men that right wingers create and then attack.
The world is not going to end if you drive your car or eat a
cheeseburger. You are not the problem -- widespread pollution by
corporations is the problem.
jojo
Are you living on Earth ? Well maybe, but not in Europe. These people
speak almost everyday in the european media. They are trying to forbid
the use of 4x4 cars now. To forbid warming devices on terraces of
cafes and restaurants. To tax people for warming their home, for
travelling by plane, for eating food that was imported from abroad and
so on...
> The world is not going to end if you drive your car or eat a
> cheeseburger.
Really ?
You are not the problem -- widespread pollution by
> corporations is the problem.
I agree. But this has nothing to do with global warming. Which is why
I am so angry at the global warming activists. The real issues are
about pollution, air and water poisoning, deforestation, destruction
of the nature, and they take all the money to fight something we are
not even sure exist, and even if it exists, that we can do anything
about it.
The worst thing is, if it appears that all the AGW was a hoax, the
backlash against all environmental issues will be very hard.
Davej
> Up to now I'd been thinking of what various real world speculations
> have had to say as clues about "Lost", but now I realize the show can
> be read the other way as a commentary.
>
Oh, I thought you probably meant "The SOL."
Tifer
> People around here are going to be very surprised when the "shape
> shifting magick" on "Lost" turns out to be skilled manipulation by one
> or more surgeons.
>
> Bobbo in the Bronxo
Yes, I would be very surprised if that's what happens. Hence, the
reason I tell you that you are in for a surprise at the end of this
show.
Bob
> > People around here are going to be very surprised when the "shape
> > shifting magick" on "Lost" turns out to be skilled manipulation by one
> > or more surgeons.
>
> > Bobbo in the Bronxo
>
> Yes, I would be very surprised if that's what happens. Hence, the
> reason I tell you that you are in for a surprise at the end of this
> show.
Do we have a money bet about this yet? If not, want to make one?
Kevin Provance
news:f3c66d32-64c1-4bbe...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
==================
C'mon. Every when it turns out you are wrong, you're still going to post
about how right you were and that your entire theory was never shown
because, like the Sopranos - we're going to be left to our imagination to
determine what really happened. So either way you're going to claim
victory.
Or will you man up and admit you were wrong?
Darren Delgado
wrote:
> "Bob" <robg...@bestweb.net> wrote in message
I already tried to pin him down on a plain English set of guidelines
to determine what would constitute "victory".
It's not going to happen, he's just a deadbeat who wants to take
advantage of someone being a good sport and someone shipping him 50 or
100 bucks because he made a vaguely worded bet that turned out to be
technically true at the end of the show. As you've seen, he backs off
and chases his tail in a circle if you tighten up the guidelines.
Bob
Bob
> I already tried to pin him down on a plain English set of guidelines
> to determine what would constitute "victory".
What's your problem? I have with a bunch of people, including you,
very specific bets about the outcome. What do you want now, some
OVERALL bet on what, total score on all my predictions? There may be
some unidentified player who got it all very early, but I'm pretty
sure I'll be the winner of Get "Lost" as judged by whomever Damon
delegates it to.
> It's not going to happen, he's just a deadbeat who wants to take
> advantage of someone being a good sport and someone shipping him 50 or
> 100 bucks because he made a vaguely worded bet that turned out to be
> technically true at the end of the show. As you've seen, he backs off
> and chases his tail in a circle if you tighten up the guidelines.
Did we or did we not make a VERY well-delineated bet about the time
period in which certain scenes took place? What's your problem now,
that my bets are TOO specific? Or NOT specific ENOUGH? How can a bet
be BOTH "vaguely worded" AND "technically true" or false?
It would seem that Tifer and I (or anyone else) could easily come up
with an unambiguous bet about plastic surgery, i.e. the use of cutting
tools, the use of direct physical force thru touching by solid
objects, healing by ordinary processes, etc. that can be distinguished
from some shape-shifting property or magick spell.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Jim Gysin
Darren Delgado sent the following on 12/22/2009 8:33 AM:
> On Dec 21, 4:03 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Darren Delgado sent the following on 12/21/2009 1:16 PM:
>>
>>> There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate".
>> Of course there is. If there weren't, those busted wouldn't have felt
>> compelled to spin their words and do damage control. Even *they* knew
>> the import of their statements.
>
> They're not spinning their words. They're un-spinning them.
You can keep saying that over and over again, but it won't make it true.
> Which is
> necessary because FOX News et al. have been quoting them completely
> out of context. Also, completely independent third parties have
> chimed in to verify their correct parsings of their own words in
> science-speak.
>>> It's was a glimpse of a
>>> political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
>> Exactly. And there should be no political consideration given to the
>> generation or dissemination of scientific data. That sort of
>> manipulation or massaging of facts and data would get an undergrad
>> kicked out of the science program of any reputable university.
>
> There was no manipulation of data.
There was manipulation of data *and* manipulation of the dissemination
of data. In an example of the former, they simply chose to stop
including data from a source that no longer served their purposes. In
an an example of the latter, they advised each other about how to
present the data in ways that would emphasize certain "facts" while
ignoring or downplaying others.
> If you think there was then you're
> not following the unfolding story.
>
> What is the scam here? 97% of the world's climatologists conspire to
> perpetuate a global warming hoax on the population of the world, in
> order to... _________ ?
Where do you get your 97% figure?
>> In the real world, sadly, it's just business as usual in a "tell the people who
>> are funding and your car payments you what they want to hear" sort of way..
>
> Really? You honestly believe that 97% of the world's climatologists
> are all lying about global warming, in a massive conspiracy to reap
> the massive financial rewards earned by a research grant; while Glenn
> Beck is the honest and truthful standard bearer exposing the truth in
> defense of the downtrodden corporate polluters?
Again, what's the source for this 97% claim?
> I find that a tad hard to believe that you believe that.
How many researchers do you know personally? I know dozens, and without
exception they acknowledge the pressure they're under to come up with
results that will appeal to those doing the funding. Because I don't
want to write them off as friends, I don't ask them if they bend or
break to that pressure. But if you honestly don't think that it's
there, then you must be far removed from the world of funded research.
>>> so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
>>> futile discussion because that will pretty much happen no matter what.
>> Those busted were doing enough distorting for everyone.
>
> Busted doing what? Absolutely nothing, if you actually read what was
> written in the e-mails you're talking about, vs. selected bites
> completely out of context.
If you have solid facts on your side, then you don't have to send emails
to one another trying to find the best way to present those "facts" to
the public. In short, the facts should speak for themselves.
[Irrelevant and unjustifiable "Fake, but accurate" spin snippped]
> They realize that they will never make a reasonable case against
> pretty much every scientist in the world, so they make a lot of noise
> about some bullshit in an e-mail and twist the words around, and go,
> "ergo, global warming does not exist (ignore 97% of the world's
> experts on this topic, plus all the mountains of evidence showing that
> man-made global warming is a worldwide crisis)."
I'm really looking forward to learning where this 97% figure comes from.
> However, in this case, it's even worse because at least that one piece
> of evidence related to Bush was in fact forged. In this case, the e-
> mails they claim to contain lies, really don't, they're just parsing
> words in a disingenuous way within the context of the convo.
To repeat: if you have solid facts on your side, then you don't have to
send emails to one another strategizing about how to present those
"facts" to the public.
--
Jim Gysin
Waukesha, WI
Jim Gysin
jojo sent the following on 12/23/2009 2:44 AM:
> On Dec 22, 4:27 pm, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2:07 am, jojo <jojl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 21, 9:16 pm, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 6:28 am, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Much like the scientific community's recent Climategate emails have
>>>>> revealed.
>>>> Good job spreading right-wing propaganda in addition to your usual
>>>> bullshit.
>>>> There is no "gate" to "Climate-gate". It's was a glimpse of a
>>>> political discussion of how best to present certain bits of evidence
>>>> so that numbnuts like you don't distort it, although that's probably a
>>> I am not right wing (not in the US meaning at least) and I do not
>>> agree with you. So do not many scientists. And when Europe and part of
>>> the US are under the coldest winter recorded in centuries, global
>>> warming theory looks pretty unconvincing.
>
>> Wait, let me get this straight. You really don't know the difference
>> between "weather" and "climate"? You think "global warming" means
>> there will never be a cold day on the planet Earth again?
>>
>> Nah, you're bluffing. No one is that stupid.
>
> Again this stupid line of arguments ? Strangely it works only one way.
> When it's hot, all the warmists explain that this is a proof of global
> warming. When it is cold, of course, this has nothing to do with it.
> Well, if you think global warming climate has no influence on the
> weather, maybe you should learn about what climate is.
> In the meantime, many scientists, among the greatest, do not believe
> in AGW. They may be be wrong, but they may be right. There is a
> scientific debate, that is not closed (and in fact, by definition,
> can't be closed if you know how science works). I don't know who is
> right, but I am quite certain that the propagandists on both sides are
> wrong.
On top of everything else, I'm fond of the following quote, brought home
once again while reading about all of the private flights and limos tied
into the recent Copenhagen joke: "I�ll believe it�s a crisis when the
people who keep telling me it�s a crisis start acting like a crisis."
solarr
> Hi thin, Darren, Jim, and jojo,
>
> Also, I found an on-line copy of one of the best articles I have ever
> read on global warming in the "New York Review of Books" by Freeman
> Dyson here:
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
This is also a good article on the subject:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
thinbluemime
"A new religion, that will bring us to our knees. Blood and Gore, If you
Please" :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management
solarr
On Jan 15, 11:19 am, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
> "A new religion, that will bring us to our knees. Blood and Gore, If you
> Please"
And what was David Blood the CEO of? Why, it's Goldman Sachs! I
smell a - dare I say it?? - conspiracy! LOL! ;-)
-/< /\ />-
Your Name
solarr
Update on the reliability of the IPCC conclusions:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
Darren Delgado
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/#more-2773
"Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the
enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple
levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these
will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more
substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon
outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there
is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the
rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and
not properly referenced.
It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some
kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to
realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just
fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water
resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
lies and distortions, by comparison.
solarr
On Jan 21, 12:40 pm, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 12:31 pm, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 15, 10:48 am, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 23 2009, 11:10 am, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi thin, Darren, Jim, and jojo,
>
> > > > Also, I found an on-line copy of one of the best articles I have ever
> > > > read on global warming in the "New York Review of Books" by Freeman
> > > > Dyson here:
>
> > > >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
>
> > > This is also a good article on the subject:
>
> > >http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>
> > Update on the reliability of the IPCC conclusions:
>
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not...
>
> "Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the
> enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple
> levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these
> will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more
> substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon
> outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there
> is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the
> rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and
> not properly referenced.
>
> It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some
> kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to
> realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just
> fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water
> resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
> al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
>
> In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
> acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
> in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
> That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
> the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
> lies and distortions, by comparison.- Hide quoted text -
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
"According to a flurry of recent reports by the BBC and other mass
media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a
furious pace. Of course this is taken as proof that climate change is
still taking place at an ever accelerating rate, despite the fact the
global temperatures have remained flat for the past decade. What,
then, explains the rapidly retreating Himalayan glaciers? Nothing,
because the glaciers are not shrinking. A new report by a senior
Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite
intact, thank you.
The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or
so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate
change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in
the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that
Himalayan glaciers “are receding faster than in any other part of the
world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” Evidently, the bogus
reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings
from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing
satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often
higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of
glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-
kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between
1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters)
a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the
retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007
Gangotri has been “practically at a standstill,” according to Raina's
report.
The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more
stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk
as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that
the glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50
years.” These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by
ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about
Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a
bit premature.
According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts
who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The
“extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have
learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the
University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram
Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or
undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence
gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist
at the University of Nebraska.
Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he
observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat.
Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are
‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt.
“There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of
retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60
years.”"
Jim Gysin
solarr sent the following on 1/21/2010 4:14 PM:
>> fine. They aren�t, and there may be serious consequences for water
>> resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
>> al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
>>
>> In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
>> acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
>> in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
>> That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
>> the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
>> lies and distortions, by comparison.- Hide quoted text -
>
> http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting
>
> "According to a flurry of recent reports by the BBC and other mass
> media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a
> furious pace. Of course this is taken as proof that climate change is
> still taking place at an ever accelerating rate, despite the fact the
> global temperatures have remained flat for the past decade. What,
> then, explains the rapidly retreating Himalayan glaciers? Nothing,
> because the glaciers are not shrinking. A new report by a senior
> Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite
> intact, thank you.
>
> The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
> India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or
> so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate
> change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in
> the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that
> world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
> disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
> reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
>
> Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings
> from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing
> satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often
> higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of
> glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-
> kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between
> 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters)
> a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the
> retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007
> report.
>
> The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more
> stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk
> as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that
> years.� These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by
> ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
> Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about
> Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a
> bit premature.
>
> who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
> �extremely provocative� findings �are consistent with what I have
> learned independently,� says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the
> University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram
> undergone an aggressive advance,� he says, citing new evidence
> gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist
> at the University of Nebraska.
>
> Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
> peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he
> observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat.
> �disappearing� quickly and will be gone in 30 years,� said Hewitt.
> �There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of
> retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60
Given that the I in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental, any results are
practically guaranteed to be questionable, at best. Inter-academic or
intercollegiate or some such thing, sure. But governments should stay
away from research, except to perhaps fund it. And even then, I doubt
that the governments or government agencies involved will ever be
willing to provide the cash without wanting to dictate the terms and
politicize or spin the results.
Darren Delgado
Oh good, now they're not melting at all! Yesterday, the main bullshit
claim was that they were melting because of soot and pollution, and
not global warming.
*eye roll*
solarr
> >> realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just
> >> fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water
> >> resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
> >> al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
>
> >> In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
> >> acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
> >> in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
> >> That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
> >> the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
> >> lies and distortions, by comparison.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-me...
>
> > "According to a flurry of recent reports by the BBC and other mass
> > media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a
> > furious pace. Of course this is taken as proof that climate change is
> > still taking place at an ever accelerating rate, despite the fact the
> > global temperatures have remained flat for the past decade. What,
> > then, explains the rapidly retreating Himalayan glaciers? Nothing,
> > because the glaciers are not shrinking. A new report by a senior
> > Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite
> > intact, thank you.
>
> > The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
> > India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or
> > so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate
> > change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in
> > the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> > Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that
> > Himalayan glaciers “are receding faster than in any other part of the
> > world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
> > disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
> > Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” Evidently, the bogus
> > reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
>
> > Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings
> > from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing
> > satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often
> > higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of
> > glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-
> > kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between
> > 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters)
> > a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the
> > retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007
> > Gangotri has been “practically at a standstill,” according to Raina's
> > report.
>
> > The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more
> > stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk
> > as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that
> > the glacier has “not shown any remarkable retreat in the last 50
> > years.” These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by
> > ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
> > Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about
> > Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a
> > bit premature.
>
> > According to a report in the journal Science, “several Western experts
> > who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
> > analysis—even if it clashes with IPCC's take on the Himalayas.” The
> > “extremely provocative” findings “are consistent with what I have
> > learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the
> > University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram
> > Mountains, on the border of India and Pakistan, have “stabilized or
> > undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence
> > gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist
> > at the University of Nebraska.
>
> > Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
> > peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he
> > observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat.
> > Such evidence “challenges the view that the upper Indus glaciers are
> > ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt.
> > “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of
> > retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60
> > years.”"
>
> Given that the I in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental, any results are
> practically guaranteed to be questionable, at best. Inter-academic or
> intercollegiate or some such thing, sure. But governments should stay
> away from research, except to perhaps fund it. And even then, I doubt
> that the governments or government agencies involved will ever be
> willing to provide the cash without wanting to dictate the terms and
> politicize or spin the results.
Yes, I don't know if you saw one of my previous posts, but Michael
Crichton touches on that subject here:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
And makes several other good points, too. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
Yes, I saw those claims, too. But I decided to post the one where
scientists deny that the glaciers are melting at all. So there we
have it. Some scientists claim the glaciers are metling because of
man-made global warming, some because of global warming, some because
of soot and polutiion and some say they aren't melting at all.
So, and I ask this question in all sincerity, Darren: how do we judge
which of these claims are true? ;-)
-/< /\ />-
Darren Delgado
There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law for bringing up Michael
Crichton.
And not jokingly.
Darren Delgado
Easy. The 97% of climatologists who claim that global warming is
caused by man's release of CO2 are right, and the 3% paid by right
wing think tanks to say the opposite are wrong.
Which part are you having a problem with?
solarr
What is your source for the 97% figure? Just curious. ;-)
> Which part are you having a problem with?
What is your evidence that Vijay Kumar Raina, Kireet Kumar, Jeffrey S.
Kargel, Michael Bishop, Kenneth Hewitt (who by the way is a
glaciologist, not a climatologist ;-), and the journal "Science" are
"paid by right wing think tanks". Any evidence at all? ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
Why don't you just try refuting his arguments? It might make you look
a little more serious to the 14 or so readers we still have left
here. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
Darren Delgado
Darren Delgado
Well, since you're posting a bunch of bullshit that has been debunked
thousands of times over the years, I don't really give a rat's ass
whether you think I'm serious.
However, to answer the question, Michael Crichton's superficial global-
warming denying BS has been debunked in so many places on the Internet
that I thought it would be redundant to even mention it.
But here's a good one:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion-ii-the-climatologists-return/
solarr
> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_a...
Ah, I see you just read the headline and didn't look too closely to
the actual poll. ;-)
The questions asked was: "Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" That is
significantly different than what you said: "97% of climatologists...
claim that global warming is
caused by man's release of CO2".
Besides 97% of climatologists agreeing on something doesn't really
mean anything. And here I quote from Crichton's essay:
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be
stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has
been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by
claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the
consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with
consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the
contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,
which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by
reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What
is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in
history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it
isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus
is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following
childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander
Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious
processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In
1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious,
and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849,
Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated
puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said
he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was
in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the
twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five
years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the
prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and
ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens
of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called
pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what
was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked
a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the
cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The
consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated
that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that
the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra
patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers
swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed
capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called
"Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The
consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a
social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the
cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They
continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth
century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem
to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912,
that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered
at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously
denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem
as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus
fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner
and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine,
repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement
therapy...the list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is
invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is
not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that
E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles
away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way."
solarr
Exactly what "bullshit" have I posted here "that has been debunked
thousands of times over the years"? Just curious ;-)
> I don't really give a rat's ass
> whether you think I'm serious.
Well, I think anyone still reading this can pretty easily tell that
you *do* care. If you really didn't care, I don't think you'd be
replying to me with so much venomous emotion. ;-)
> However, to answer the question, Michael Crichton's superficial global-
> warming denying BS has been debunked in so many places on the Internet
> that I thought it would be redundant to even mention it.
>
> But here's a good one:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichto...
That's it? They "refute" exactly three sentences in Crichton's whole
essay. One of their points, by the way, I agree with. I don't agree
with Crichton that "[c]ertainly the increased use of computer models,
such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the
models from those who verify them." IF the people producing the
models and recording the data are honest brokers, anyone can look at
the data, and the predictions and see how well they match. There are
statistical tools for evaluating "goodness of fit", like linear
regression (R2 (R-square)) values. The only question is how honest
the people doing the work are. That's why "climategate" should be of
interest and concern to all of us who are seeking the truth.
The next criticism is of this statement: "Nobody believes a weather
prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction
that goes out 100 years into the future?" The authors then proceed to
link to three different websites that explain the difference between
"weather" and "climate". The first one says "[s]ome define climate as
the statistical average of weather over a period of time". The second
one says this: "[c]limate is the average weather in a location over a
long period of time." The third one says this: "climate refers to
the average pattern of weather in a region".
Well, there seems to be a "concensus" (LOL! ;-) that climate is an
averaging of weather over time. Tell, me Darren, if you can't predict
the weather very accurately, then how can you possible predict "the
average of weather over time" any better? That doesn't make any sense
to me. Maybe you can explain it to me. ;-) It's like the guy at the
carnival who predicts people's weight. He doesn't get very many
*individual* weights right, but don't worry - his predictions on the
"average weight over time" will be *much* better! ;-)
Finally, they criticize this statement: "No longer are models judged
by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly,
models provide the data," and they link to the *very report that is in
question* the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). Anyway, they link to the "Model Evaluation" section of the
report, so let's look at one of the graphs from that section:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/308.htm
First of all, where is the R-square linear regression of the
predictions that give a statistical evaluation of how well the models
perform? Anyway, lets look at the graph. Around 1945, the prediction
by the model *closest* to the actual temperature was 0.35 degrees off
and the worst model was 0.45 degress off. Also notice that from about
1972 to the mid 1980s the actual temperature was *consistently* below
any of the three models shown (which I presume were their *best*
ones ;-). Also note that the whole of the 1990s that is shown on the
graph show the same trend. Still think those models are good enough?
I won't even give you a hard time about the fact that the models don't
agree all that well with *each other*, either. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
> (IPCC). Anyway, they link to the "Model Evaluation" section of the
> report, so let's look at one of the graphs from that section:
>
> http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_ta...
I tried this link and it didn't go directly to the graph. In order to
see the graph you have to click on this section:
8.6.1 20th Century Coupled Model Integrations Including Greenhouse
Gases and Sulphate Aerosols
then enlarge the graph to see enough detail. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
Darren Delgado
You really think that's venom?
Do you get out much?
Darren Delgado
Right, one science fiction writer with his head up his ass is much
more influential than 97% of people whose entire life's work is based
on understanding the poll question.
Just ask L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writers are the go-to group
for understanding the universe.
> And here I quote from Crichton's essay:
>
> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>
> "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
> rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
> science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be
> stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has
> been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by
> claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the
> consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
> wallet, because you're being had.
Exactly -- don't think, don't study the evidence. If scientists all
agree something is happening, that's proof that it isn't!
You picked a perfect quote showing why this guy is a dangerous Luddite
asshole.
Darren Delgado
> Hi Darren,
>
> On Jan 26, 2:36 pm, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 26, 10:49 am, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> That's it? They "refute" exactly three sentences in Crichton's whole
> essay. One of their points, by the way, I agree with. I don't agree
> with Crichton that "[c]ertainly the increased use of computer models,
> such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the
> models from those who verify them." IF the people producing the
> models and recording the data are honest brokers, anyone can look at
> the data, and the predictions and see how well they match. There are
> statistical tools for evaluating "goodness of fit", like linear
> regression (R2 (R-square)) values. The only question is how honest
> the people doing the work are. That's why "climategate" should be of
> interest and concern to all of us who are seeking the truth.
>
> The next criticism is of this statement: "Nobody believes a weather
> prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to believe a prediction
> that goes out 100 years into the future?" The authors then proceed to
> link to three different websites that explain the difference between
> "weather" and "climate". The first one says "[s]ome define climate as
> the statistical average of weather over a period of time". The second
> one says this: "[c]limate is the average weather in a location over a
> long period of time." The third one says this: "climate refers to
> the average pattern of weather in a region".
Crichton's statement isn't based on fact. Who says that weather
predictions are generally wrong? Does he back this up with evidence?
No. He's relying on a 1950s shitty standup comedian's act as basis
for an anti-global warming screed. "Those weathermen are always
wrong, AM I RIGHT??" No asshole, you're not right. Day-to-day
weather predictions are remarkably accurate in the long run, but
people like to bitch about the one in 5 or 10 that is wrong and we get
rain on a sunny day prediction, and he is relying on that populist
knee-jerk reaction from dummies who don't really understand weather
and climate and don't want to hurt their heads thinking about it.
> Well, there seems to be a "concensus" (LOL! ;-) that climate is an
> averaging of weather over time. Tell, me Darren, if you can't predict
> the weather very accurately, then how can you possible predict "the
> average of weather over time" any better? That doesn't make any sense
> to me. Maybe you can explain it to me. ;-)
Probably not, since you just read three links designed to explain it
to really stupid people who think weather is climate, and you still
dont understand it.
> It's like the guy at the
> carnival who predicts people's weight. He doesn't get very many
> *individual* weights right, but don't worry - his predictions on the
> "average weight over time" will be *much* better! ;-)
Who says meteorologists don't predict weather accurately over the
short run? Your whole argument is based on this premise, apparently
(since you picked it up from a guy who can't write even a fucking sci-
fi novel without dozens of science holes in it) and it's baseless.
It would be like if the guy predicted 8 people's weight exactly right,
but got the ninth one wrong, and some dumbfuck wrote a sci-fi novel
about how no one ever guesses weight right.\
clau...@webtv.net
solarr
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/how-valid-are-tv-weather-forecasts/
QUOTE ON
The results were quite enlightening, as were some of the comments of
the local meteorologists and their station managers. Here a few of the
quotes we received:
“We have no idea what’s going to happen [in the weather] beyond three
days out.” ...
For next day predicting (one day out), all stations met their “within
three degrees” goal. For two days out, all but one was within three
degrees. But for three days out and beyond, none of the forecasters
met their three-degree benchmark, and in fact get linearly worse each
day.
The conclusion to be drawn here is not so much that one station is
better than another, since all of them seem to be similar in accuracy
— and most people won’t alter their plans based on a couple degrees of
temperature. Rather, all of our stations did not do a good job by
their own definition of plus/minus three degrees beyond two days out.
Have you ever noticed that the prediction for a particular day keeps
changing from day to day, sometimes by quite a bit? The graph above
shows how much the different stations change their minds about their
own forecasts over a seven-day period.
On average, N.O.A.A. is the most consistent, but even they change
their mind by more than six degrees and 23 percent likelihood of
precipitation over a seven-day span.
The Kansas City television meteorologists will change their mind from
6.8 to nearly nine degrees in temperature and 30 percent to 57 percent
in precipitation, showing a distinct lack of confidence in their
initial predictions as time goes on.
The prize for the single most inconsistent forecast goes to Channel
5’s Devon Lucie who on Sunday, September 30th predicted a high
temperature of 53 degrees for October 7th, and seven days later
changed it to 84 degrees — a difference of 31 degrees! It turned out
to be 81 that day.
A close second was Channel 4’s Mike Thompson’s initial prediction of
83 for October 15th, which he changed to 53 just two days later. It
turned out to be 64 on the 15th.
Even more conclusively than the temperature accuracy graph, this
prediction variance graph shows that 21st century meteorology is not
developed enough to provide a week of accurate temperature
forecasting.
Meteorologists take a blind stab at what the high temperature and rain
possibilities might be seven days out, and then adjust their
predictions on the fly as the week goes on. As mentioned earlier, one
meteorologist told us: “We have no idea what’s going to happen beyond
three days out.”
The graph above shows that stations get their precipitation
predictions correct about 85 percent of the time one day out and
decline to about 73 percent seven days out.
On the surface, that would not seem too bad. But consider that if a
meteorologist always predicted that it would never rain, they would be
right 86.3 percent of the time. So if a viewer was looking for more
certainty than just assuming it will not rain, a successful
meteorologist would have to be better than 86.3 percent. Three of the
forecasters were about 87 percent at one day out — a hair over the
threshold for success.
Other than that, no forecaster is ever better than just assuming it
won’t rain. If you think that’s bad, sadly it gets worse:
The data for the precipitation accuracy graph was taken from all days
of the study. For many of those summer days it was clearly obvious
there would be no rain, and thus those days were no challenge for the
meteorologists. A better measure of a forecaster’s skill would be to
exclude the days when there was clearly no chance of rain. After all,
if you wanted to measure a golfer’s putting skill, you would not have
him putt his test putts from only six inches away from the cup. You
would want to challenge him with putts from five to fifteen feet —
putts that could readily be made or missed.
For that type of meteorologist test, we only included the days that it
either rained or the meteorologist predicted it would rain, thus
eliminating the days where it clearly was not going to rain. The
following graph shows the results.
Because conditions for rain on these days were more likely and more
challenging to predict, we lowered our benchmark for success on this
test from 86.3 percent to 50 percent. Sadly, four of the five stations
topped the 50 percent goal only on their next-day forecast.
For all days beyond the next day out, viewers would be better off
flipping a coin to predict rainfall than trusting the stations on days
where rain was possible. Oddly, N.O.A.A. — which had been one of the
better forecasters in our other evaluations — was the worst in this
one, especially when predicting three days out and beyond."
QUOTE OFF
Still think meteorologists can predict the weather with any
accuracy? ;-) And please note the takeaway idea from this study:
The further out in time (more than a day or two) from the prediction,
the more likely it is to be wrong. Tell us Darren, exactly how far
out are your expert climatologists predicting the weather? ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
>
> > > Hi thin, Darren, Jim, and jojo,
>
> > > Also, I found an on-line copy of one of the best articles I have ever
> > > read on global warming in the "New York Review of Books" by Freeman
> > > Dyson here:
>
> > >http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
>
> > This is also a good article on the subject:
>
> >http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>
> Update on the reliability of the IPCC conclusions:
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
Yet another update on the reliability of the IPCC report:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html
solarr
solarr
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-sa...
Still another update on the honesty and openness of the IPCC report:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
Jim Gysin
solarr sent the following on 1/25/2010 12:37 PM:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On Jan 21, 5:42 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> solarr sent the following on 1/21/2010 4:14 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hi Darren,
>>> On Jan 21, 12:40 pm, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 21, 12:31 pm, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 15, 10:48 am, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Dec 23 2009, 11:10 am, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi thin, Darren, Jim, and jojo,
>>>>>>> Also, I found an on-line copy of one of the best articles I have ever
>>>>>>> read on global warming in the "New York Review of Books" by Freeman
>>>>>>> Dyson here:
>>>>>>> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
>>>>>> This is also a good article on the subject:
>>>>>> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>>>>> Update on the reliability of the IPCC conclusions:
>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
>>>> "Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the
>>>> enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple
>>>> levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these
>>>> will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more
>>>> substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon
>>>> outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there
>>>> is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the
>>>> rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and
>>>> not properly referenced.
>>>> It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some
>>>> kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to
>>>> fine. They aren�t, and there may be serious consequences for water
>>>> resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
>>>> al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
>>>> In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
>>>> acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
>>>> in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
>>>> That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
>>>> the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
>>>> lies and distortions, by comparison.- Hide quoted text -
>>> "According to a flurry of recent reports by the BBC and other mass
>>> media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a
>>> furious pace. Of course this is taken as proof that climate change is
>>> still taking place at an ever accelerating rate, despite the fact the
>>> global temperatures have remained flat for the past decade. What,
>>> then, explains the rapidly retreating Himalayan glaciers? Nothing,
>>> because the glaciers are not shrinking. A new report by a senior
>>> Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite
>>> intact, thank you.
>>> The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
>>> India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or
>>> so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate
>>> change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in
>>> the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>>> Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that
>>> world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
>>> disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
>>> reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
>>> Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings
>>> from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing
>>> satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often
>>> higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of
>>> glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-
>>> kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between
>>> 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters)
>>> a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the
>>> retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007
>>> report.
>>> The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more
>>> stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk
>>> as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that
>>> years.� These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by
>>> ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
>>> Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about
>>> Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a
>>> bit premature.
>>> who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
>>> learned independently,� says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the
>>> University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram
>>> undergone an aggressive advance,� he says, citing new evidence
>>> gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist
>>> at the University of Nebraska.
>>> Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
>>> peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he
>>> observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat.
>>> �disappearing� quickly and will be gone in 30 years,� said Hewitt..
>>> �There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of
>>> retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60
>> Given that the I in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental, any results are
>> practically guaranteed to be questionable, at best. Inter-academic or
>> intercollegiate or some such thing, sure. But governments should stay
>> away from research, except to perhaps fund it. And even then, I doubt
>> that the governments or government agencies involved will ever be
>> willing to provide the cash without wanting to dictate the terms and
>> politicize or spin the results.
>
> Yes, I don't know if you saw one of my previous posts, but Michael
> Crichton touches on that subject here:
>
> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>
> And makes several other good points, too. ;-)
Yep. I thoroughly enjoyed the book, STATE OF FEAR, and his research.
Jim Gysin
Darren Delgado sent the following on 1/26/2010 5:26 PM:
>>>>>>>>> fine. They aren�t, and there may be serious consequences for water
>>>>>>>>> resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
>>>>>>>>> al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
>>>>>>>>> In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
>>>>>>>>> acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
>>>>>>>>> in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
>>>>>>>>> That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
>>>>>>>>> the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
>>>>>>>>> lies and distortions, by comparison.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-me...
>>>>>>>> "According to a flurry of recent reports by the BBC and other mass
>>>>>>>> media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a
>>>>>>>> furious pace. Of course this is taken as proof that climate change is
>>>>>>>> still taking place at an ever accelerating rate, despite the fact the
>>>>>>>> global temperatures have remained flat for the past decade. What,
>>>>>>>> then, explains the rapidly retreating Himalayan glaciers? Nothing,
>>>>>>>> because the glaciers are not shrinking. A new report by a senior
>>>>>>>> Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite
>>>>>>>> intact, thank you.
>>>>>>>> The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
>>>>>>>> India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or
>>>>>>>> so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate
>>>>>>>> change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in
>>>>>>>> the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>>>>>>>> Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that
>>>>>>>> world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
>>>>>>>> disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
>>>>>>>> reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
>>>>>>>> Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings
>>>>>>>> from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing
>>>>>>>> satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often
>>>>>>>> higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of
>>>>>>>> glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-
>>>>>>>> kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between
>>>>>>>> 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters)
>>>>>>>> a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the
>>>>>>>> retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007
>>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>>> The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more
>>>>>>>> stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk
>>>>>>>> as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that
>>>>>>>> years.� These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by
>>>>>>>> ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
>>>>>>>> Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about
>>>>>>>> Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a
>>>>>>>> bit premature.
>>>>>>>> who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
>>>>>>>> learned independently,� says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the
>>>>>>>> University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram
>>>>>>>> undergone an aggressive advance,� he says, citing new evidence
>>>>>>>> gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist
>>>>>>>> at the University of Nebraska.
>>>>>>>> Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
>>>>>>>> peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he
>>>>>>>> observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat.
>>>>>>>> �disappearing� quickly and will be gone in 30 years,� said Hewitt.
>>>>>>>> �There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of
>>>>>>>> retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60
>>>>>>> Given that the I in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental, any results are
>>>>>>> practically guaranteed to be questionable, at best. Inter-academic or
>>>>>>> intercollegiate or some such thing, sure. But governments should stay
>>>>>>> away from research, except to perhaps fund it. And even then, I doubt
>>>>>>> that the governments or government agencies involved will ever be
>>>>>>> willing to provide the cash without wanting to dictate the terms and
>>>>>>> politicize or spin the results.
>>>>>> Yes, I don't know if you saw one of my previous posts, but Michael
>>>>>> Crichton touches on that subject here:
>>>>>> And makes several other good points, too. ;-)
>>>>> There should be a corollary to Godwin's Law for bringing up Michael
>>>>> Crichton.
>>>>> And not jokingly.
>>>> Why don't you just try refuting his arguments? It might make you look
>>>> a little more serious to the 14 or so readers we still have left
>>>> here. ;-)
>>> Well, since you're posting a bunch of bullshit that has been debunked
>>> thousands of times over the years,
>> Exactly what "bullshit" have I posted here "that has been debunked
>> thousands of times over the years"? Just curious ;-)
>>
>>> I don't really give a rat's ass
>>> whether you think I'm serious.
>> Well, I think anyone still reading this can pretty easily tell that
>> you *do* care. If you really didn't care, I don't think you'd be
>> replying to me with so much venomous emotion. ;-)'
>
> You really think that's venom?
>
> Do you get out much?
It's venom. And it speaks volumes.
Jim Gysin
Darren Delgado sent the following on 1/26/2010 5:30 PM:
>>>>>>>>> fine. They aren�t, and there may be serious consequences for water
>>>>>>>>> resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
>>>>>>>>> al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
>>>>>>>>> In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
>>>>>>>>> acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
>>>>>>>>> in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
>>>>>>>>> That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
>>>>>>>>> the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
>>>>>>>>> lies and distortions, by comparison.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-me...
>>>>>>>> "According to a flurry of recent reports by the BBC and other mass
>>>>>>>> media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a
>>>>>>>> furious pace. Of course this is taken as proof that climate change is
>>>>>>>> still taking place at an ever accelerating rate, despite the fact the
>>>>>>>> global temperatures have remained flat for the past decade. What,
>>>>>>>> then, explains the rapidly retreating Himalayan glaciers? Nothing,
>>>>>>>> because the glaciers are not shrinking. A new report by a senior
>>>>>>>> Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite
>>>>>>>> intact, thank you.
>>>>>>>> The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
>>>>>>>> India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or
>>>>>>>> so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate
>>>>>>>> change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in
>>>>>>>> the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>>>>>>>> Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that
>>>>>>>> world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
>>>>>>>> disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
>>>>>>>> reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
>>>>>>>> Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings
>>>>>>>> from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing
>>>>>>>> satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often
>>>>>>>> higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of
>>>>>>>> glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-
>>>>>>>> kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between
>>>>>>>> 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters)
>>>>>>>> a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the
>>>>>>>> retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007
>>>>>>>> report.
>>>>>>>> The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more
>>>>>>>> stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk
>>>>>>>> as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that
>>>>>>>> years.� These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by
>>>>>>>> ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
>>>>>>>> Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about
>>>>>>>> Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a
>>>>>>>> bit premature.
>>>>>>>> who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
>>>>>>>> learned independently,� says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the
>>>>>>>> University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram
>>>>>>>> undergone an aggressive advance,� he says, citing new evidence
>>>>>>>> gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist
>>>>>>>> at the University of Nebraska.
>>>>>>>> Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
>>>>>>>> peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he
>>>>>>>> observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat.
>>>>>>>> �disappearing� quickly and will be gone in 30 years,� said Hewitt.
>>>>>>>> �There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of
>>>>>>>> retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60
Crichton was much more than that, and you either know it or you should,
especially before attacking the man. FWIW, he graduated summa cum laude
from Harvard (Al Gore's marks were much lower) *and* earned his MD at
Harvard, as well, *and* was accepted as a post-doc fellow at the Salk
Institute.
Hearing a relative stranger on Usenet attacking this man's intellect is
more than just slightly amusing.
> Just ask L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writers are the go-to group
> for understanding the universe.
>> And here I quote from Crichton's essay:
>>
>> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>>
>> "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the
>> rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus
>> science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be
>> stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has
>> been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by
>> claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the
>> consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
>> wallet, because you're being had.
>
> Exactly -- don't think, don't study the evidence. If scientists all
> agree something is happening, that's proof that it isn't!
That's not what he's saying at all. Did you really bother to read it?
But the point is valid, as is the point that no one refers to, say, a
"consensus" that 2+2=4 or that F=ma.
> You picked a perfect quote showing why this guy is a dangerous Luddite
> asshole.
Luddite? Heh. Boy, do you have that one wrong, on pretty much every
level possible. Not only did Crichton *embrace* technology himself, but
if anyone is promoting a Luddite-like approach, it's the extremists on
the tree-hugging front.
Jim Gysin
solarr sent the following on 1/27/2010 1:36 PM:
Heh. Let the guy stagger back into his corner for a moment, willya?
This is painful to witness! (But I love how polite you're being while
you dismantle him.)
Darren Delgado
It's not venom, I just treat shoddy arguments with the respect they
deserve. Do you see any "venom" when I respond to the same guy in
Lost-related threads? No, because in those, he makes sense.
Darren Delgado
He's making a strawman argument, the same one, over and over and
over. No one said every single IPCC report is accurate, or that every
paper researching global warming bears out correct.
Global warming denialists have a problem: the overwhelming body of
evidence destroys their case, so they wait for any single paper to
appear with an error in it, or for one person or organization
researching global warming to be involved in a fraud, then they act as
if this invalidates the entire body of evidence, which of course, it
doesn't.
Darren Delgado
> >>>>>>>>> fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water
> >>>>>>>>> resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et
> >>>>>>>>> al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers."
> >>>>>>>>> In other words, Republicans and conspiracy theorists should stop
> >>>>>>>>> acting like an 8-year old playing "gotcha" and acting like every error
> >>>>>>>>> in any climate change paper invalidates the entire body of work.
> >>>>>>>>> That's baseless and asinine. The work of climate change deniers and
> >>>>>>>>> the propaganda churned out by polluting corporations is riddled with
> >>>>>>>>> lies and distortions, by comparison.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>>>>http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-me...
> >>>>>>>> "According to a flurry of recent reports by the BBC and other mass
> >>>>>>>> media, the glaciers in the Himalayan mountains are melting at a
> >>>>>>>> furious pace. Of course this is taken as proof that climate change is
> >>>>>>>> still taking place at an ever accelerating rate, despite the fact the
> >>>>>>>> global temperatures have remained flat for the past decade. What,
> >>>>>>>> then, explains the rapidly retreating Himalayan glaciers? Nothing,
> >>>>>>>> because the glaciers are not shrinking. A new report by a senior
> >>>>>>>> Indian glaciologist states that the glaciers remain frozen and quite
> >>>>>>>> intact, thank you.
> >>>>>>>> The report by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of
> >>>>>>>> India, seeks to correct widely spread reports that India's 10,000 or
> >>>>>>>> so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate
> >>>>>>>> change. It's not true, Raina says. The rumors may have originated in
> >>>>>>>> the Asia chapter of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> >>>>>>>> Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report, which claims that
> >>>>>>>> world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them
> >>>>>>>> disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the
> >>>>>>>> reporting was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers.
> >>>>>>>> Raina's report draws on published studies and unpublished findings
> >>>>>>>> from half a dozen Indian groups who have analyzed remote-sensing
> >>>>>>>> satellite data or conducted on-site surveys at remote locations often
> >>>>>>>> higher than 5000 meters. While the report surveyed of a number of
> >>>>>>>> glaciers, two particularly iconic ones stand out. The first is the 30-
> >>>>>>>> kilometer-long Gangotri glacier, source of the Ganges River. Between
> >>>>>>>> 1934 and 2003, the glacier retreated an average of 70 feet (22 meters)
> >>>>>>>> a year and shed a total of 5% of its length. But in 2004 and 2005, the
> >>>>>>>> retreat slowed to about 12 meters a year, and since September 2007
> >>>>>>>> report.
> >>>>>>>> The second glacier, the Siachin glacier in Kashmir, is even more
> >>>>>>>> stable. Claims reported in the popular press that Siachin has shrunk
> >>>>>>>> as much as 50% are simply wrong, says Raina, whose report notes that
> >>>>>>>> years.” These conclusions were based in part on field measurements by
> >>>>>>>> ecologist Kireet Kumar of the G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan
> >>>>>>>> Environment and Development in Almora. Much like the hysteria about
> >>>>>>>> Greenland's ice cap, it seems reports of the glaciers' demise are a
> >>>>>>>> bit premature.
> >>>>>>>> who have conducted studies in the region agree with Raina's nuanced
> >>>>>>>> learned independently,” says Jeffrey S. Kargel, a glaciologist at the
> >>>>>>>> University of Arizona, Tucson. Many glaciers in the Karakoram
> >>>>>>>> undergone an aggressive advance,” he says, citing new evidence
> >>>>>>>> gathered by a team led by Michael Bishop, a mountain geomorphologist
> >>>>>>>> at the University of Nebraska.
> >>>>>>>> Having recently returned from an expedition to K2, one of the highest
> >>>>>>>> peaks in the world, Canadian glaciologist Kenneth Hewitt says he
> >>>>>>>> observed five advancing glaciers and only a single one in retreat.
> >>>>>>>> ‘disappearing’ quickly and will be gone in 30 years,” said Hewitt.
> >>>>>>>> “There is no evidence to support this view and, indeed, rates of
> >>>>>>>> retreat have been less in the past 30 years than the previous 60
Where did I attack his intellect? Brilliant guys can make horseshit
arguments. He had his head up his ass, in regard to his public
statements on climate.
Anyway, he was an MD. I'd take his advice for a broken arm. Since
when does earning any degree qualify you to be an expert on every
subject including those outside your field of study? The hordes of
men and women calling him out on his bullshit have degrees too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Criticism
You can side with the Lost Is About How The Jews Did 9/11 Guy and the
science fiction writer, I'll stick with the guys in the white lab
coats who study this stuff for a living. Especially since the
evidence overwhelmingly bears out what they've been saying for decades
now.
Jim Gysin
Darren Delgado sent the following on 1/29/2010 12:18 AM:
> On Jan 28, 5:49 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Darren Delgado sent the following on 1/26/2010 5:30 PM:
>>
>>> On Jan 26, 3:44 pm, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Darren,
>>>> the actual poll. ;-)
>>>> The questions asked was: "Do you think human activity is a significant
>>>> contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" That is
>>>> significantly different than what you said: "97% of climatologists...
>>>> claim that global warming is
>>>> caused by man's release of CO2".
>>>> Besides 97% of climatologists agreeing on something doesn't really
>>>> mean anything.
>>> Right, one science fiction writer with his head up his ass is much
>>> more influential than 97% of people whose entire life's work is based
>>> on understanding the poll question.
>> Crichton was much more than that, and you either know it or you should,
>> especially before attacking the man. FWIW, he graduated summa cum laude
>> from Harvard (Al Gore's marks were much lower) *and* earned his MD at
>> Harvard, as well, *and* was accepted as a post-doc fellow at the Salk
>> Institute.
>>
>> Hearing a relative stranger on Usenet attacking this man's intellect is
>> more than just slightly amusing.
>
> Where did I attack his intellect?
By labeling him as a "science fiction writer with his head up his ass,"
because (a) he's more than just a science fiction writer and (b) I don't
agree with his opinion or his valid reasons for those opinions" and "He
has his head up his ass" are not synonymous.
> Brilliant guys can make horseshit
> arguments. He had his head up his ass, in regard to his public
> statements on climate.
If so, you've done nothing to prove it here, and solarr has effectively
countered what you *have* presented, and has done so while keeping
things civil.
> Anyway, he was an MD. I'd take his advice for a broken arm. Since
> when does earning any degree qualify you to be an expert on every
> subject including those outside your field of study? The hordes of
> men and women calling him out on his bullshit have degrees too.
You're leaving out his experience at the Salk Institute, where (if he
didn't know it already) he learned about the scientific method, along
with what is and isn't acceptable in the area of research practices.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Criticism
Yes, but you'll notice that I'm not writing them off as having their
heads up their asses, as I know that the jury is still out on the
matter. You, OTOH, despite the many recent and tangible examples of
spin and exaggeration from those on your side of the debate, seem to
already be convinced that the matter is settled and that Crichton, for
disagreeing with you, is a fool of some sort.
> You can side with the Lost Is About How The Jews Did 9/11 Guy and the
> science fiction writer, I'll stick with the guys in the white lab
> coats who study this stuff for a living.
Okay, partnering Crichton with lostdude is a *really* low blow. :)
> Especially since the
> evidence overwhelmingly bears out what they've been saying for decades
> now.
When it comes to science, evidence and proof are not the same thing, and
there is evidence both ways at this time, and reasons to have concerns
about the methodology of the evidence-gathering and dissemination as of
this date.
And, again, you simply can't escape the fact that, at best, those on
your side of the argument can attempt to claim "consensus," whereas
there is no need to invoke "consensus" on things like 2+2=4 and F=ma.
Furthermore, there is no need to email one another about how best to
present such Newtonian *facts* to others in order to ensure that the
presentation works to the advantage of the ones doing the presenting.
Should we wait for proof before we begin to act responsibly about the
way we treat our planet? That's a subjective call, and I would say
"no." How *much* we should do or spend or sacrifice is another matter
altogether, and I don't claim to have The Answer. OTOH, we *should*
wait for proof before we write off someone as nothing more than a
"science fiction writer with his head up his ass."
In any case, I try to limit things to LOST matters here, so I'll let you
have the final word after I make one more observation. In the absence
of proof, a person of genuinely high honor and intellect will encourage
and entertain and respect all viewpoints and will avoid locking in on
one "truth." This is true for *any* subject, but on this subject, in
particular, there are many people out there who could benefit by keeping
this thought in mind.
Jim Gysin
Darren Delgado sent the following on 1/28/2010 11:38 PM:
> On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> solarr sent the following on 1/27/2010 1:36 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 1:15 pm, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi thin, Darren, Jim, and jojo,
>>>>>>>> Also, I found an on-line copy of one of the best articles I have ever
>>>>>>>> read on global warming in the "New York Review of Books" by Freeman
>>>>>>>> Dyson here:
>>>>>>>> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
>>>>>>> This is also a good article on the subject:
>>>>>>> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>>>>>> Update on the reliability of the IPCC conclusions:
>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
>>>>> Yet another update on the reliability of the IPCC report:
>>>>> http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html
>>>> Yet another update on the reliability of the IPCC report:
>>> Still another update on the honesty and openness of the IPCC report:
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
>> Heh. Let the guy stagger back into his corner for a moment, willya?
>> This is painful to witness! (But I love how polite you're being while
>> you dismantle him.)
>
> He's making a strawman argument, the same one, over and over and
> over. No one said every single IPCC report is accurate, or that every
> paper researching global warming bears out correct.
>
> Global warming denialists have a problem: the overwhelming body of
> evidence destroys their case, so they wait for any single paper to
> appear with an error in it, or for one person or organization
> researching global warming to be involved in a fraud, then they act as
> if this invalidates the entire body of evidence, which of course, it
> doesn't.
Errors are one thing. Deliberately distorting or misstating the
evidence is another. And summarily rejecting evidence because it
doesn't fit in with the other "overwhelming body of evidence" is yet
another thing.
solarr
Still another update on the honesty and openness of the IPCC report.
And this time, Phil Jones faces *prosecution* for breaching Great
Britain's Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with
requests for data:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
solarr
On Jan 29, 12:18 am, Darren Delgado <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You can side with the Lost Is About How The Jews Did 9/11 Guy and the
> science fiction writer, I'll stick with the guys in the white lab
> coats who study this stuff for a living.
The problem with that argument is that the "guys in the white lab
coats" who promote this theory are people like Phil Jones, who said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
QUOTE ON
In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25
or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available
to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
QUOTE OFF
Darren, Jones may wear a white lab coat (as a matter of fact, so do
I ;-) and he may have "Professor" in front of his name and "PhD"
behind it, but he is no scientist. A scientists NEVER hides data.
When he crosses that line you can be sure of this: he know his data is
suspect. He has become a propagandist, and is no longer doing
science. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
The odd thing about it is that Darren immediately assumed I'm a right-
winger who doesn't believe in man-made global warming. In fact, I'm
agnostic on the matter and will remain so until I see the actual data
and see the actual equations used for modeling the predictions.
The fradulent claims in the IPCC report, the way the believers treat
sceptics, and the way the believers won't release, data though, are
making me very, very, suspicious. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
This is an update on the one above:
Looks like Jones won't be prosecuted after all, because the statute of
limitations has passed. ;-)
The emails posted in the article are eye-opening as well. =:-O
Jim Gysin
solarr sent the following on 1/29/2010 1:18 PM:
> Hi Jim,
>
> On Jan 28, 4:51 pm, Jim Gysin <jimgy...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> solarr sent the following on 1/27/2010 1:36 PM:
>>
>>> On Jan 27, 1:15 pm, solarr <sol...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi thin, Darren, Jim, and jojo,
>>>>>>>> Also, I found an on-line copy of one of the best articles I have ever
>>>>>>>> read on global warming in the "New York Review of Books" by Freeman
>>>>>>>> Dyson here:
>>>>>>>> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21494
>>>>>>> This is also a good article on the subject:
>>>>>>> http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
>>>>>> Update on the reliability of the IPCC conclusions:
>>>>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6994774.ece
>>>>> Yet another update on the reliability of the IPCC report:
>>>>> http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/and-now-for-amazongate.html
>>>> Yet another update on the reliability of the IPCC report:
>>> Still another update on the honesty and openness of the IPCC report:
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece
>> Heh. Let the guy stagger back into his corner for a moment, willya?
>> This is painful to witness! (But I love how polite you're being while
>> you dismantle him.)
>
> The odd thing about it is that Darren immediately assumed I'm a right-
> winger who doesn't believe in man-made global warming. In fact, I'm
> agnostic on the matter and will remain so until I see the actual data
> and see the actual equations used for modeling the predictions.
>
> The fradulent claims in the IPCC report, the way the believers treat
> sceptics, and the way the believers won't release, data though, are
> making me very, very, suspicious. ;-)
Sounds as if you and I are on the same page on this one. If you have
solid facts at your disposal and those facts are on your side, then you
don't need to spin them or massage them, and you definitely don't need
to hide them from others.
Darren Delgado
In no place did I call you a right-winger. That would imply
dishonesty which I do not believe is the case. I think you really
believe the falsehoods you're promoting here.
Darren Delgado
You act as if smart people can't have their heads up their respective
asses.
> > Brilliant guys can make horseshit
> > arguments. He had his head up his ass, in regard to his public
> > statements on climate.
>
> If so, you've done nothing to prove it here, and solarr has effectively
> countered what you *have* presented, and has done so while keeping
> things civil.
No, he didn't do either actually. He keeps pointing out errors in the
IPCC report, when those errors are not in dispute. It's a strawman
argument.
Also, I think you're overvaluing civility just a tad. I don't give
brownie points for adding smileys at the end of posts. Nor do I think
it's a valid arguing tactic to focus on how many times one's opponent
says the word "fuck", it's just a distraction because the substance of
what the Michael Crichtons and Glenn Becks of the world are promoting
about climate change is completely false and debunked.
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear#Criticism
>
> Yes, but you'll notice that I'm not writing them off as having their
> heads up their asses, as I know that the jury is still out on the
> matter. You, OTOH, despite the many recent and tangible examples of
> spin and exaggeration from those on your side of the debate, seem to
> already be convinced that the matter is settled and that Crichton, for
> disagreeing with you, is a fool of some sort.
>
> > You can side with the Lost Is About How The Jews Did 9/11 Guy and the
> > science fiction writer, I'll stick with the guys in the white lab
> > coats who study this stuff for a living.
>
> Okay, partnering Crichton with lostdude is a *really* low blow. :)
Well, my point is, when you take an anti-science position as you are
doing here, you become bedfellows with kooks. It doesn't mean YOU'RE
a kook -- I respect your opinions in other threads and you seem like a
nice guy -- but it's not an accident that kooks like lostdude and
Glenn Beck share kooky viewpoints. That's what happens when you let
your biases form your opinion and cherrypick data to pick your
worldview, rather than the reverse.
> > Especially since the
> > evidence overwhelmingly bears out what they've been saying for decades
> > now.
>
> When it comes to science, evidence and proof are not the same thing, and
> there is evidence both ways at this time, and reasons to have concerns
> about the methodology of the evidence-gathering and dissemination as of
> this date.
>
> And, again, you simply can't escape the fact that, at best, those on
> your side of the argument can attempt to claim "consensus," whereas
> there is no need to invoke "consensus" on things like 2+2=4 and F=ma.
That's because there isn't a megamillion dollar concerted effort to
disseminate propaganda trying to convince people that 2 + 2 doesn't =
4.
Pointing to a concensus of scientists, based on the overwhelming data,
SHOULD be a valid way to get people to take notice, but unfortunately
we live in a country where pop-sci-fi writers and FOX News hosts carry
more weight than actual scientists, because it's hip to be anti-
intellectual.
> Furthermore, there is no need to email one another about how best to
> present such Newtonian *facts* to others in order to ensure that the
> presentation works to the advantage of the ones doing the presenting.
>
> Should we wait for proof before we begin to act responsibly about the
> way we treat our planet? That's a subjective call, and I would say
> "no." How *much* we should do or spend or sacrifice is another matter
> altogether, and I don't claim to have The Answer. OTOH, we *should*
> wait for proof before we write off someone as nothing more than a
> "science fiction writer with his head up his ass."
Not if the arguments he was making are unscientific and loopy.
COME ON people! If there's global warming, WHY IS IT COLD OUT
TODAY?! Am I right?
thinbluemime
<darren...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, my point is, when you take an anti-science position as you are
> doing here, you become bedfellows with kooks. It doesn't mean YOU'RE
> a kook -- I respect your opinions in other threads and you seem like a
> nice guy -- but it's not an accident that kooks like lostdude and
> Glenn Beck share kooky viewpoints. That's what happens when you let
> your biases form your opinion and cherrypick data to pick your
> worldview, rather than the reverse.
The problem is the scientific community can't admit their faith or their
beliefs are influencing their decision making. As a theist, I can.
Here is an article by Michael Rivero, special effects producer for Lost,
that you or others may find entertaining.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php
"The LOVE of money is the root of all evil." Even an agnostist like Rivero
can agree upon this. The climatologists that tout human caused global
warming might, if they weren't so monetarily involved.
Darren Delgado
Yes, enough accuracy to tell me whether you need to wear a coat or
not. But, that's all TV stations are in the business of doing.
You're still, amazingly, confusing weather with climate. Predicting
the weather on a given SINGLE day is a hell of a lot different from
making accurate predictions based upon a century of weather data and
patterns, so it's a given that those predictions will be LESS
accurate. We don't know for sure what the weather will be on June
15th at 2 PM! It could drop to 40, or hell, it could start hailing!
But we can make a good prediction about what the average weather will
be for the summer months. Surely, you can see how this also holds
true for 10 or 20 year chunks.
In other words, this is a very wordy restatement of the goofy Crichton
argument. We can't predict the weather, with 100% accuracy, on any
SINGLE day, so we can't say anything substantial about aggregate
weather patterns over the past 40 years. It's an anti-scientific,
wildly ridiculous premise. If this were true, then there would be no
need for anyone to study climate whatsoever, just flip a coin.
Please tell me you don't really believe that nonsense.
solarr
Well, you can call me a right-winger (or anything else ;-) if you
want, I don't mind. People can and will make up their own minds on
what my politcal persuasion might be (or they could just ask! ;-).
But, what "falsehoods" that I "believe" am I "promoting" here,
exactly? Just curious. ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
On Jan 29, 6:03 pm, thinbluemime <thinbluem...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:18:46 -0500, Darren Delgado
>
> <darrendelg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well, my point is, when you take an anti-science position as you are
> > doing here, you become bedfellows with kooks. It doesn't mean YOU'RE
> > a kook -- I respect your opinions in other threads and you seem like a
> > nice guy -- but it's not an accident that kooks like lostdude and
> > Glenn Beck share kooky viewpoints. That's what happens when you let
> > your biases form your opinion and cherrypick data to pick your
> > worldview, rather than the reverse.
>
> The problem is the scientific community can't admit their faith or their
> beliefs are influencing their decision making. As a theist, I can.
>
> Here is an article by Michael Rivero, special effects producer for Lost,
> that you or others may find entertaining.
>
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php
Good reference. And it actually relates to "Lost"!! ;-)
-/< /\ />-
solarr
Well, I asked for your help on this idea when I wrote above:
The next criticism [of Crichton] is of this statement: "Nobody
believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we’re asked to
believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?" The
authors then proceed to link to three different websites that explain
the difference between "weather" and "climate". The first one says
"[s]ome define climate as the statistical average of weather over a
period of time". The second one says this: "[c]limate is the average
weather in a location over a long period of time." The third one says
this: "climate refers to the average pattern of weather in a region".
The quotations are from three sites explaining the difference in
"weather" and "climate" that you indirectly pointed me to. Yet all
three clearly state, in slightly different wordings, that climate is a
"statistical average of weather"!! If the study by the Freakonomics
guys shows that no one can predict the weather with any accuracy, how
can anyone predict "the statisitcal average of weather" any better?
The last time I asked this question you implied I was too stupid to
understand the explanation. ("Probably not, since you just read three
links designed to explain it to really stupid people who think weather
is climate, and you still dont understand it." - Delgado ;-) I'm
starting to think you don't understand the difference, either. ;-)
> In other words, this is a very wordy restatement of the goofy Crichton
> argument. We can't predict the weather, with 100% accuracy, on any
> SINGLE day, so we can't say anything substantial about aggregate
> weather patterns over the past 40 years. It's an anti-scientific,
> wildly ridiculous premise. If this were true, then there would be no
> need for anyone to study climate whatsoever, just flip a coin.
>
> Please tell me you don't really believe that nonsense.
Weather is a chaotic system, Darren. Please read the first chapter of
James Gleick's book "Chaos" - in fact, read the whole book, it's
really good about what was, back then, a brand-new area of science.
You will see in the very first chapter that predicting weather (*and*
climate) on a computer is almost *inherently* impossible becuase of
the importance of the initial value of the variables used - to the
tenth decimal place!! =:-O
You might also want to check out this graph of CO2 content in Earth's
atmosphere over a very, very long time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif
How do you explain those non-man-made variations of CO2? Natural
cycles? Why wouldn't natural cycles explain the variations now? ;-)
Finally, I can see that you mind is made up about man-made global
warming. My isn't, but we've had a pretty good debate here, detailed
enough so people can look into both our claims. So, I'll let you go
on this subject, mainly because:
"Lost" is ABOUT TO START :-) :-) and discussing IT will take all of
our Usenet time! And, that's a *good* thing! ;-)
-/< /\ />-
Darren Delgado
Again, I didn't say you are a right-winger. You are definitely
enabling the cause of right-wingers, in some small way, by promoting
know-nothing anti-intellectualism, and distrust of scientists, but
that doesn't mean you actually vote for them.
> But, what "falsehoods" that I "believe" am I "promoting" here,
> exactly? Just curious. ;-)
Well, it's 100% false that the climate can't accurately be predicted
over time, based on observable weather patterns over the past century-
plus, just because the weatherman told you to wear your little
galoshies yesterday and it didn't rain.
Actually it's not only 100% false -- people can be knowledgeable in
general but be completely wrong on one topic but that's OK. But this
is such an absurd statement that you'd have to think that anyone
advancing that point doesn't even have the willingness to understand
what is being discussed, it's like being willfully ignorant. Either
that, or like Michael Crichton, you're starting with a
counterintuitive belief already held, and trying to cherry pick
"facts" that fit it and ignore the mountains of evidence to the
contrary.
Darren Delgado
*sigh*
Because, to predict tomorrow's weather for the News at Eleven, the
specific weather in a specific area, there's only a few hours worth of
volatile data. To predict climate developments, there's over a
hundred years of data to sort through, to create a larger picture.
Therefore, accurate weather readings are harder to come by than
accurate climate observations. It's like if I take a coin, and flip
it 100 times, once a day. If I ask you to predict on a given day how
many heads there will be, you might guess 55, and the real number of
heads might be 97 that day. Wow! You suck at predicting! But if I
have been doing this trial for 60 years, you could look back at the
data and see that you could reasonably expect to get about 45-55 heads/
tails every day, with a few crazy outliers here and there.
But now, if we apply Michael Crichton reasoning, you would say that we
can't really expect to get closer and closer to 50% heads over more
and more trials -- we really can't predict anything at all, because
reams of previous data mean nothing, and the evil scientists are lying
to us when almost 100% of them agree that the evidence says that coin
flips will get closer and closer to 50% heads over time. Why are they
all banding together and lying to us? Who the fuck knows, maybe it
has something to do with the JFK assassination. He's a sci-fi writer,
he can make something up and they can make it into another shitty
movie like Congo.
Weather isn't climate. Weather isn't climate. Weather isn't
climate. Rinse and repeat.
> The last time I asked this question you implied I was too stupid to
> understand the explanation. ("Probably not, since you just read three
> links designed to explain it to really stupid people who think weather
> is climate, and you still dont understand it." - Delgado ;-) I'm
> starting to think you don't understand the difference, either. ;-)
No, actually, I don't think you're stupid at all. I think you're
being willfully ignorant, like Michael Crichton was, when he suddenly
declared himself a weather expert, as well as the guys who wrote
Freakonomics. None of those guys are stupid, or anywhere close to it,
but they're arrogant, and they get an idea and go into cherry-pick
mode and write long pseudo-scientific screeds "backing" their claims.
And their arrogance leads to lapses in judgment, resulting in the
debunked crap you keep posting here.
By the way, here's a good and thorough debunking of that horribly
muddled bullshit the Freakonomics guys wrote.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/