Climate Change

[Robert Bannister]

Shawn's always complaining there are no real figures for climate change.
I don't suppose he'll believe these either, but I thought I'd offer them:

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

For myself, I see a problem with "warming" because when it's warm there,
it's probably cold here or somewhere else. There is also plenty of
evidence of previous warm as well as cold periods in historical times,
but figures are figures.
--
Robert Bannister
Perth, Western Australia

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 8:46:51 PM UTC-7, Robert Bannister wrote:

> Shawn's always complaining there are no real figures for climate change.

No, I don't.

> I don't suppose he'll believe these either, but I thought I'd offer them:
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Presented by non experts as if it were the word of god. Based on 'science' by people who have a vested financial interest in the AGW theory being accepted as fact.

Note a VERY important details- "This line shows the measured, or "observed" land-ocean temperature."

AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming. Surface warming, which they show here, can only be a function of increased insolation (brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy reaching the surface if AGW were correct. It would be intercepted by the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.

This data actual rejects the AGW model.

Then, of course and as usual, there is the problem that warming is economically and ecologically BENEFICIAL.

[Robert Bannister]

I only complain when we get too many days over 40°C. We've just had June
with average maximum temperatures of 21°C - this is apparently a record
for June (June being winter here) and beats previous records by a few
degrees.

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-06-30, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming. Surface
> warming, which they show here, can only be a function of increased insolation
> (brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy reaching the surface if AGW were
> correct. It would be intercepted by the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.

... thus showing Shawn knows nothing about either radioactivity, thermal
conductivity, or how work has to convert to heat. Anyone surprised?

> Then, of course and as usual, there is the problem that warming is
> economically and ecologically BENEFICIAL.

Sure, Shawn. Sure. Except where it isn't, which is nearly everywhere. It _will_
manage to get you flooded out and drowned eventually, so that's one point in
its favor...

Dave, and you still don't realize it's "climate change", not "global warming",
and that climate has a good deal to do with WHY it's not uniform across the
Earth's surface. Merry Christmas, by the way!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 8:46:51 PM UTC-7, Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>> Shawn's always complaining there are no real figures for climate
>> change.
>
>
> No, I don't.
>
>
>
>
>> I don't suppose he'll believe these either, but I thought I'd offer
>> them:
>>
>> http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
>
>
> Presented by non experts as if it were the word of god. Based on
> 'science' by people who have a vested financial interest in the AGW
> theory being accepted as fact.
>
> Note a VERY important details- "This line shows the measured, or
> "observed" land-ocean temperature."
>
> AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming.
> Surface warming, which they show here, can only be a function of
> increased insolation (brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy
> reaching the surface if AGW were correct. It would be intercepted by
> the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.

No, that's wrong. An increase in greenhouse gases allows the insolation to
get through to the surface, and then prevents it from radiating back into
space. Thus the surface becomes warmer (especially the oceans). Have you
never noticed that (especially in winter) a cloudy night is often warmer
than a clear night?

>
> This data actual rejects the AGW model.
>
> Then, of course and as usual, there is the problem that warming is
> economically and ecologically BENEFICIAL.

That depends on who you are and where you are, which pests are attacking
your crops at any particular time, and your supply of fresh water.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:19:46 AM UTC+10, Shawn Wilson wrote:
land-ocean temperature."
>
> AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming. Surface
>warming, which they show here, can only be a function of increased insolation
>(brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy reaching the surface if AGW were
>correct. It would be intercepted by the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.

Shawn, Shawn, Shawn...
It's one of the major issues of the past 25 years and you've never bothered to investigate the mechanism rather than go with your first thought about it.

Almost all of the energy reaching the earth from the sun is in the visible spectrum and near infrared.
C02 (and other greenhouse gasses) absorb very little energy from those frequencies.
When it hits the surface it is absorbed and heat emission from the surface is at lower frequency infra-red which is absorbed the greenhouse gasses...

You can find this information out by spending 5 minutes at wikipedia and checking their references (see http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro202/Mitchell_GRL89.pdf )

but you'd rather believe that you're smarter than everybody else and that 1000s of scientists are wrong.

>
> Then, of course and as usual, there is the problem that warming is economically and ecologically BENEFICIAL.

And your source for this amazing information is what?
Provide references in peer reviewed journals

Also note that increased CO2 levels brings about increased acidity in the oceans which cause problems for a lot of a lot of invertibrates...

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:22:37 AM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:


> > AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming.
> > Surface warming, which they show here, can only be a function of
> > increased insolation (brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy
> > reaching the surface if AGW were correct. It would be intercepted by
> > the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.
>
> No, that's wrong. An increase in greenhouse gases allows the insolation to
> get through to the surface, and then prevents it from radiating back into
> space.

Not a one way effect. The atmosphere absorbs energy on the way down too.

> Thus the surface becomes warmer

No, the ATMOSPHERE becomes warmer. The atmosphere is what is absorbing the energy. And then the warmer air *rises* to be replaced with the cooler air above it. When you are talking about the ocean getting warmer you are saying that AGW is simply wrong. AGW won't warm oceans. Increased insolation will.

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 1:29:15 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:22:37 AM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
>
> > > AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming.
> > > Surface warming, which they show here, can only be a function of
> > > increased insolation (brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy
> > > reaching the surface if AGW were correct. It would be intercepted by
> > > the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.
> >
> > No, that's wrong. An increase in greenhouse gases allows the insolation to
> > get through to the surface, and then prevents it from radiating back into
> > space.
>
>
> Not a one way effect. The atmosphere absorbs energy on the way down too.

Yes, a (mostly) one way effect, but you have to be scientifically literate
to understand why.

Those of us with a better science education than Shawn are of course aware (as
has already been explained him, but which he chooses to ignore, or more likely,
simply doesn't comprehend) that incoming sunlight is an a band of the spectrum
which the atmosphere is largely transparent to, so most gets through. However,
the objects which the sun warms radiate in the long infrared, to which the
atmosphere is far more opaque. Thus, the heat gets trapped. This *is* the
greenhouse effect.

pt

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:40:06 AM UTC-7, hamis...@gmail.com wrote:


> > AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming. Surface
> >warming, which they show here, can only be a function of increased insolation
> >(brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy reaching the surface if AGW were
> >correct. It would be intercepted by the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.
>
> Shawn, Shawn, Shawn...
> It's one of the major issues of the past 25 years and you've never bothered to investigate the mechanism rather than go with your first thought about it.

25 years? You're off by ten. 35 years minimum (late 70s for me). It was global cooling then of course. Or DDT, or acid rain, or hole in the ozone layer, or the Amazon being entirely cut down, or CFCs, or nuclear winter, or...


A) Understand this in your soul- AGW THEORIES ARE WRONG ON THEIR FACE. They predicted warming as a consequence of increased CO2 over the past 20 years, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED (the 'pause'). Period. End of discussion. The models are simply fundamentally wrong.

Note also that using the same models to retro'predict' the period 1940-1970 we get a prediction of rising temperatures (as usual, CO2 was rising right on schedule) but the actual data was FALLING temperatures. Falling bad enough and long enough to start 'new ice age' hysteria, which I remember quite well, it was right before nuclear winter became a thing. Nuclear winter was another theory touted as infallible by people with a political agenda. Also false.

There is none of this "Well if we ass-ume the models are correct, because..." bullshit. The models are not correct. Their predictions are false. It simply does not matter how many people say they are God given.

I don't NEED a superior alternative theory. But I have one anyway- increased insolation. Which explains the actual climate record, INCLUDING the 'pause'.
Not to mention the warming we have seen ON OTHER PLANETS.


B) Climatologists have a record of lies, bullshit and incompetence in their publication. ("Hide the decline", seawater temperature measurements, Mann's 'hockey stick')

They are to be distrusted. They have a financial incentive to say what they say and to NOT say the opposite.


C) There is no economic reason for warming to be bad. You claim that some adjustments would have to be made in some regions. So what? Even the predicted rate of warming is much slower than ordinary economic adjustment that goes on all day every day. Yes, you literally CAN move an entire city for free, as far as you want, so long as you have a reasonable time frame. You go on hysterically claiming that people will be unable to adjust and all kinds of evil will befall. Bullshit.

> Almost all of the energy reaching the earth from the sun is in the visible spectrum and near infrared.
> C02 (and other greenhouse gasses) absorb very little energy from those frequencies.
> When it hits the surface it is absorbed and heat emission from the surface is at lower frequency infra-red which is absorbed the greenhouse gasses...

In the atmosphere. Once again, the atmosphere warms, not the surface. But in reality the surface is warming, not the atmosphere. Theory A predicts A, theory B predicts B. We see B. Which theory is correct?

> You can find this information out by spending 5 minutes at wikipedia and checking their references (see http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro202/Mitchell_GRL89.pdf )
>
> but you'd rather believe that you're smarter than everybody else and that 1000s of scientists are wrong.

Yes, all those thousands of scientists are wrong or lying.

What research did YOU do? Did you examine the counter-arguments to AGW? Did you take into account their manifest dishonesty and incompetence? Did you take into account the thousands of scientists who REJECT AGW? Do you think you are smarter than they are? Do you think those thousands of scientists are wrong?

Do you think a bunch of *climatologists* understand what the economic consequences of this would be better than an actual economist does?

> > Then, of course and as usual, there is the problem that warming is economically and ecologically BENEFICIAL.
>
> And your source for this amazing information is what?

My own personal economic expertise.

> Also note that increased CO2 levels brings about increased acidity in the oceans which cause problems for a lot of a lot of invertibrates...

So? Increased CO2 promotes plant growth, and warming allows more plant growth and plant growth in areas where it is currently impossible. Plants are invertebrates...

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:42:22 AM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:


> Those of us with a better science education than Shawn are of course

There is actually no one here with a better science education than I have.

You just want the theory to be true in face of the fact that reality says otherwise.

There hasn't been any warming in 20 years. Your theory predicts there should be. Your theory is wrong. QED.

Testing theories is what science is about. No one who says otherwise is a scientist.

aware (as
> has already been explained him, but which he chooses to ignore, or more likely,
> simply doesn't comprehend) that incoming sunlight is an a band of the spectrum
> which the atmosphere is largely transparent to, so most gets through. However,
> the objects which the sun warms radiate in the long infrared, to which the
> atmosphere is far more opaque. Thus, the heat gets trapped. This *is* the
> greenhouse effect.

And yet there is no warming for the last 20 years. Your theory is wrong. You lose. I win.

[John F. Eldredge]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 10:57:20 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:42:22 AM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>> Those of us with a better science education than Shawn are of course
>
>
> There is actually no one here with a better science education than I
> have.

I posted a few minutes ago that, lately, Shawn had been claiming
expertise in economics, not universal expertise. I see the relative
modesty didn't last very long.

Shawn, if you are such a science expert, why haven't you been able to get
a job in the field? If you had such, you would not be having to post
from library computers.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:13:36 AM UTC-7, John F. Eldredge wrote:


> >> Those of us with a better science education than Shawn are of course
> >
> >
> > There is actually no one here with a better science education than I
> > have.
>
> I posted a few minutes ago that, lately, Shawn had been claiming
> expertise in economics, not universal expertise. I see the relative
> modesty didn't last very long.
>
> Shawn, if you are such a science expert, why haven't you been able to get
> a job in the field? If you had such, you would not be having to post
> from library computers.

How much of an expert do you think I have to be to equal anyone here? Do you think you have a science education? If so, why do you consider AGW to be correct despite its predictions being literally no better than chance?

[pete...@gmail.com]

Shawn: Two points

1. The 'pause' may well be an illusion:

While the paper in 'Science' showing this is behind a paywall, it's been
widely covered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/06/15/a-pause-in-global-warming-not-really/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

2. Even if there's been a bit of variation in the rate of temperature
increase, the secular over the past 100+ years is indisputable:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2548.htm
and in particular:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/images/glob_jan-dec_pg.jpg

pt

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:39:13 AM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:

> 1. The 'pause' may well be an illusion:

The pause is actual measurements and data.

> While the paper in 'Science' showing this is behind a paywall, it's been
> widely covered.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/06/15/a-pause-in-global-warming-not-really/
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/no-pause-in-global-warming/
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

I am aware of this study. Poor statistical methodology matched with poor scientific methodology with no goal but to explain away the pause and eliminate an embarrassment to AGW because people supporting AGW are not acting as scientists. They are emotionally (and financially...) attached to a specific theory.

Here's an alternative theory that explains all the data- AGW is wrong.

> 2. Even if there's been a bit of variation in the rate of temperature
> increase, the secular over the past 100+ years is indisputable:

There mere existence of rising temperatures over a century doesn't mean that specific theory A is correct. Once again, THIS IS BASIC SCIENCE. Unlike ANYONE else here I was trained to look at theory skeptically and evaluate their merits and flaws.

AGW simply does not explain the historical record.

Infinitely many things could cause rising temperatures. AGW is one of them. So what? So is my weight, which correlates pretty well with the temperature record. Does that mean that a theory based on my weight is correct?

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/1/15 2:23 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:13:36 AM UTC-7, John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
>
>>>> Those of us with a better science education than Shawn are of course
>>>
>>>
>>> There is actually no one here with a better science education than I
>>> have.
>>
>> I posted a few minutes ago that, lately, Shawn had been claiming
>> expertise in economics, not universal expertise. I see the relative
>> modesty didn't last very long.
>>
>> Shawn, if you are such a science expert, why haven't you been able to get
>> a job in the field? If you had such, you would not be having to post
>> from library computers.
>
>
> How much of an expert do you think I have to be to equal anyone here?

You'd have to be more of an expert than someone who holds three
degrees, multiple patents, and has a job managing multiple R&D projects,
say, like me.

You don't measure up, Shawn.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-07-01, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:42:22 AM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Those of us with a better science education than Shawn are of course
>
> There is actually no one here with a better science education than I have.

I count at least six in this thread alone, plus me. And Terry. And Starmaker.

(What? He's spelling everything right, mostly, in his trolling, and he knows
enough about science to be keeping up with the latest reports so he can distort
them for his questioning trolling posts.)

> You just want the theory to be true in face of the fact that reality says
> otherwise.

That's you, dear.

> There hasn't been any warming in 20 years.

"And this was odd, because it was / the middle of the night." Nonsense, Shawn.

Recent years have included the warmest ones since records started being KEPT.
Recent years' summer months also have. You're just trying hard to misread
stuff that says recent years' WINTER months have been cold with excessive
amounts of snowing, blizzarding, and ice storms to say "HAH! It all averages
out to normal!" No, it doesn't. Atmosphere's warming; surface is warming;
oceans are warming. Coral reefs are dying, fish habitats are moving, growing
zones are moving poleward, seasonal timing of plants and animals in given
places is moving outwards from summers towards winters, etc.

> Testing theories is what science is about. No one who says otherwise is a
> scientist.

Sure. Ignoring actual data and clinging for dear life to stuff that's
nonsensical, disproved, and refuted is NOT science. You've gotta be able to
_change your opinion_ when needed, to be a scientist, when confronted with
contradictory data; saying "oh, that data ain't so, people I know who know
people say that they know people who Said So" isn't gonna do it. Just about
all actual climate scientists (not completely all, it's hard to find ANYTHING
scientists agree _completely_ on in the semi-soft sciences like weather, let
alone the gooey drippy ones like economics) agree that climate change IS
happening, is happening NOW and has been for a little while, and IS caused by
manmade actions and substances.

Dave

[Don Bruder]

What's that old line? Oh, yeah... Something real close to

"Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders might not be able to tell which
of you is which."

In this case, it's at least amusing to note that the primary idiot is
keeping to his usual pattern.

--
Security provided by Mssrs Smith and/or Wesson. Brought to you by the letter Q

[Robert Bannister]

On 2/07/2015 1:57 am, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 10:42:22 AM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> Those of us with a better science education than Shawn are of course
>
>
> There is actually no one here with a better science education than I have.
>
> You just want the theory to be true in face of the fact that reality says otherwise.
>
> There hasn't been any warming in 20 years. Your theory predicts there should be. Your theory is wrong. QED.

Isn't that just in a small part of the northern hemisphere?

[J. Clarke]

In article <cvjfl1...@mid.individual.net>, rob...@clubtelco.com
says...

What interests me, and what I seldom see mentioned, is that winters in
the Northeastern part of North America have been wetter than usual for
several years now, with snowcap extending further south and remaining in
place longer. If this trend continues, we might see glaciation despite
warmer temperatures, which would ruin the days of quite a lot of people
who are wedded to the idea that warmer temperatures mean that everything
melts.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 5:24:04 PM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:


> > There is actually no one here with a better science education than I have.
>
> I count at least six in this thread alone, plus me. And Terry. And Starmaker.

No, you don't. I mean, you can CLAIM anything you want. But when you are emotionally defending a theory that the real world says is wrong, you don't have a science education.

You don't seem to be able to parse different theories and determine which is superior. That's amazingly ignorant.

> > You just want the theory to be true in face of the fact that reality says
> > otherwise.
>
> That's you, dear.

*I* don't have to explain why the real world temperature data doesn't support my pet apocalyptic theory.

> > There hasn't been any warming in 20 years.
>
> "And this was odd, because it was / the middle of the night." Nonsense, Shawn.
>
> Recent years have included the warmest ones since records started being KEPT.

OK, so what? Do you think that supports AGW over increased insolation?

> Recent years' summer months also have. You're just trying hard to misread
> stuff that says recent years' WINTER months have been cold with excessive
> amounts of snowing, blizzarding, and ice storms to say "HAH! It all averages
> out to normal!" No, it doesn't. Atmosphere's warming; surface is warming;
> oceans are warming. Coral reefs are dying, fish habitats are moving, growing
> zones are moving poleward, seasonal timing of plants and animals in given
> places is moving outwards from summers towards winters, etc.

Dogs and cats are living together. Mass Hysteria!!!

AGW v increased insolation. The actual data supports insolation.

> > Testing theories is what science is about. No one who says otherwise is a
> > scientist.
>
> Sure. Ignoring actual data

I don't have to explain why temps have been static the last 20 years. I don't have the explain 30 years of FALLING temps when the theory says rising. I don't have to explain how AGW is warming *Mars*...

and clinging for dear life to stuff that's
> nonsensical, disproved, and refuted is NOT science. You've gotta be able to
> _change your opinion_ when needed, to be a scientist, when confronted with
> contradictory data; saying "oh, that data ain't so, people I know who know
> people say that they know people who Said So" isn't gonna do it. Just about
> all actual climate scientists (not completely all, it's hard to find ANYTHING
> scientists agree _completely_ on in the semi-soft sciences like weather, let
> alone the gooey drippy ones like economics) agree that climate change IS
> happening, is happening NOW and has been for a little while, and IS caused by
> manmade actions and substances.

Let me ask you two simple questions-

1) What temperature data would convince you that global warming is not occurring?

2) What data would convince you that humanity is not to blame if global warming is occurring?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> You'd have to be more of an expert than someone who holds three
> degrees, multiple patents, and has a job managing multiple R&D projects,
> say, like me.
>
> You don't measure up, Shawn.

OK then, AGW v increased insolation. Compare and contrast reality versus predictions. What data supports or rejects which models? What data do the models explain or fail to explain?

Economics- Global warming is bad, why or why not. Provide details.

If you're so smart, this should be easy for you.

[Greg Goss]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>What interests me, and what I seldom see mentioned, is that winters in
>the Northeastern part of North America have been wetter than usual for
>several years now, with snowcap extending further south and remaining in
>place longer. If this trend continues, we might see glaciation despite
>warmer temperatures, which would ruin the days of quite a lot of people
>who are wedded to the idea that warmer temperatures mean that everything
>melts.

In a classical ice age, you've got to lift an awful lot of water a
mile or two then drop it on the gathering glaciers.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 17:36:25 -0700, Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net>
wrote:

>What's that old line? Oh, yeah... Something real close to
>
>"Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders might not be able to tell which
>of you is which."

I prefer, "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his
level and beat you with experience."



--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Robert A. Woodward]

In article <cvjfl1...@mid.individual.net>,

Which small part of the northern hemisphere? I have heard that
throughout the 20th century, the weather stations in the USA, as a
group, tended to have equal numbers of record daily highs and
record daily lows per year. The 21st century has seen far more
record highs than record lows. BTW, the average high for June 2015
in Seattle broke the previous record for June by 3 degrees (the
2nd, 3rd, etc. highest averages are separated by tenths of
degrees).

--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://robertaw.drizzlehosting.com>

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/1/15 10:14 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 3:44:31 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>
>> You'd have to be more of an expert than someone who holds three
>> degrees, multiple patents, and has a job managing multiple R&D projects,
>> say, like me.
>>
>> You don't measure up, Shawn.
>
>
> OK then

No. You asked about qualifications in science, generally. That's it.
And you haven't EVER measured up.

You also argue from wrong premises, take anti-global-warming talking
points as gospel in a way showing that you either cannot, or
deliberately do not, understand their weaknesses, and have been shown to
argue in bad faith extensively in all such areas that aren't SF, Gaming,
or otherwise not actually touching on the real world.

This site dismantles pretty much every single argument against climate
change AKA global warming, so if you wanna argue, argue with them:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

[lal_truckee]

On 7/1/15 9:04 PM, Greg Goss wrote:

> In a classical ice age, you've got to lift an awful lot of water a
> mile or two then drop it on the gathering glaciers.

It's called "snow."

We used to have it occasionally in the higher altitudes, out here on the
left coast.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:37:15 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> > OK then
>
> No. You asked about qualifications in science, generally. That's it.
> And you haven't EVER measured up.

And you have demonstrated here that your qualifications in science generally are none. You would rather foam and the mouth and launch personal attacks than discuss a relevant issue and explain and defend your views on it.

That is not the attitude of a scientist.

That is why I am a scientist and you are not, no matter how many people previously tried to make you one or how well you deceived them.

[Greg Goss]

Yeah, but the snow involves applying energy at sea level to extract it
from the oceans. That was my point. I used to live in a region
dominated by hydro power based mostly on stored spring melt. There's
a LOT of energy in that high-altitude snow.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 7/1/2015 7:36 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> What's that old line? Oh, yeah... Something real close to
>
> "Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders might not be able to tell which
> of you is which."
>
> In this case, it's at least amusing to note that the primary idiot is
> keeping to his usual pattern.

This looks fairly applicable to the conversation:
http://www.gocomics.com/bc/2015/06/19

Lynn

[Mike Dworetsky]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 7:40:06 AM UTC-7, hamis...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>>> AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming.
>>> Surface
>>> warming, which they show here, can only be a function of increased
>>> insolation (brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy reaching the
>>> surface if AGW were
>>> correct. It would be intercepted by the atmosphere rather than
>>> reach 'land'.
>>
>> Shawn, Shawn, Shawn...
>> It's one of the major issues of the past 25 years and you've never
>> bothered to investigate the mechanism rather than go with your first
>> thought about it.
>
>
> 25 years? You're off by ten. 35 years minimum (late 70s for me).
> It was global cooling then of course. Or DDT, or acid rain, or hole
> in the ozone layer, or the Amazon being entirely cut down, or CFCs,
> or nuclear winter, or...
>
>
> A) Understand this in your soul- AGW THEORIES ARE WRONG ON THEIR
> FACE. They predicted warming as a consequence of increased CO2 over
> the past 20 years, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED (the 'pause'). Period. End
> of discussion. The models are simply fundamentally wrong.

It's mainly sea temperatures that are expected to show the most direct
evidence of increase. Global sea temperatures are surprisingly hard to
measure accurately. But it can be done.

>
> Note also that using the same models to retro'predict' the period
> 1940-1970 we get a prediction of rising temperatures (as usual, CO2
> was rising right on schedule) but the actual data was FALLING
> temperatures. Falling bad enough and long enough to start 'new ice
> age' hysteria, which I remember quite well, it was right before
> nuclear winter became a thing. Nuclear winter was another theory
> touted as infallible by people with a political agenda. Also false.

I think the "hysteria" was based on the fact that the current interglacial
has gone on for a long time.

As for nuclear winter, there is only one way to test it for sure and I don't
think it would be a good idea to do the experiment. Do you?

>
> There is none of this "Well if we ass-ume the models are correct,
> because..." bullshit. The models are not correct. Their predictions
> are false. It simply does not matter how many people say they are
> God given.

You have already tried to explain that in your universe, CO2 blocks as much
incoming radiation as outgoing radiation. Somehow I think this invalidates
your rant completely as it simply is not true.

>
> I don't NEED a superior alternative theory. But I have one anyway-
> increased insolation. Which explains the actual climate record,
> INCLUDING the 'pause'.

Please cite the published data that support your increased insolation
theory. As far as I am aware there is no such data.

> Not to mention the warming we have seen ON OTHER PLANETS.
>

Again, this needs a cite.

>
> B) Climatologists have a record of lies, bullshit and incompetence
> in their publication. ("Hide the decline", seawater temperature
> measurements, Mann's 'hockey stick')
>
> They are to be distrusted. They have a financial incentive to say
> what they say and to NOT say the opposite.

Unlike, say, big oil companies?

>
>
> C) There is no economic reason for warming to be bad. You claim
> that some adjustments would have to be made in some regions. So
> what? Even the predicted rate of warming is much slower than
> ordinary economic adjustment that goes on all day every day. Yes,
> you literally CAN move an entire city for free, as far as you want,
> so long as you have a reasonable time frame. You go on hysterically
> claiming that people will be unable to adjust and all kinds of evil
> will befall. Bullshit.

There are two separate questions, is AGW taking place? And if so, is it bad
for the economies of various countries around the world? If you have a
thousand years, I suppose moving a city is not such a problem, but if you
have 50 years, then I think there is a problem. But the main problem is not
cities, the problem is agriculture.

>
>
>
>
>
>> Almost all of the energy reaching the earth from the sun is in the
>> visible spectrum and near infrared.
>> C02 (and other greenhouse gasses) absorb very little energy from
>> those frequencies.
>> When it hits the surface it is absorbed and heat emission from the
>> surface is at lower frequency infra-red which is absorbed the
>> greenhouse gasses...
>
>
> In the atmosphere. Once again, the atmosphere warms, not the
> surface. But in reality the surface is warming, not the atmosphere.
> Theory A predicts A, theory B predicts B. We see B. Which theory is
> correct?

The surface definitely warms, the sea warms, ice melts, and the atmosphere
also warms.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>> You can find this information out by spending 5 minutes at wikipedia
>> and checking their references (see
>> http://astrosun2.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro202/Mitchell_GRL89.pdf
>> )
>>
>> but you'd rather believe that you're smarter than everybody else and
>> that 1000s of scientists are wrong.
>
>
> Yes, all those thousands of scientists are wrong or lying.
>
> What research did YOU do? Did you examine the counter-arguments to
> AGW? Did you take into account their manifest dishonesty and
> incompetence? Did you take into account the thousands of scientists
> who REJECT AGW? Do you think you are smarter than they are? Do you
> think those thousands of scientists are wrong?
>
> Do you think a bunch of *climatologists* understand what the economic
> consequences of this would be better than an actual economist does?
>
>
>>> Then, of course and as usual, there is the problem that warming is
>>> economically and ecologically BENEFICIAL.
>>
>> And your source for this amazing information is what?
>
>
>
> My own personal economic expertise.
>

Which comes from what formal training and study?

>
>
>
>> Also note that increased CO2 levels brings about increased acidity
>> in the oceans which cause problems for a lot of a lot of
>> invertibrates...
>
>
> So? Increased CO2 promotes plant growth, and warming allows more
> plant growth and plant growth in areas where it is currently
> impossible. Plants are invertebrates...

[Greg Goss]

"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>Shawn Wilson wrote:

>> I don't NEED a superior alternative theory. But I have one anyway-
>> increased insolation. Which explains the actual climate record,
>> INCLUDING the 'pause'.
>
>Please cite the published data that support your increased insolation
>theory. As far as I am aware there is no such data.
>
>> Not to mention the warming we have seen ON OTHER PLANETS.
>
>Again, this needs a cite.

Pournelle (a less obscenely loud skeptic than Shawn) has posted links
to evidence of a warming trend on Mars and I think Neptune. I don't
know if the current dramatic fading of Jupiter's red spot would be
related to heating.

>>> Also note that increased CO2 levels brings about increased acidity
>>> in the oceans which cause problems for a lot of a lot of
>>> invertibrates...
>>
>>
>> So? Increased CO2 promotes plant growth, and warming allows more
>> plant growth and plant growth in areas where it is currently
>> impossible. Plants are invertebrates...

The forestry industry near where I grew up has been almost destroyed
by a beetle that used to be controlled by winter temperatures, and has
run rampant over the last fifteen years. CO2 and warmer temperatures
are not always better for plants. Just ask pine trees in BC.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:42:19 PM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:


> > A) Understand this in your soul- AGW THEORIES ARE WRONG ON THEIR
> > FACE. They predicted warming as a consequence of increased CO2 over
> > the past 20 years, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED (the 'pause'). Period. End
> > of discussion. The models are simply fundamentally wrong.
>
> It's mainly sea temperatures that are expected to show the most direct
> evidence of increase. Global sea temperatures are surprisingly hard to
> measure accurately. But it can be done.

No, it is in fact atmospheric temperatures that were predicted to rise. Which you would know if you ever read anything on the topic. The AGW crowd didn't bring up sea temperatures until it turned out their model didn't work and its predictions were garbage. But, increased insolation WAS causing the sea surface to warm, so they went with that, under the correct assumption that the sheeple are too ignorant and stupid to understand how major the shift was.

So, to start off with, no honest discussion can be had with you, because you have no factual basis. You either literally know nothing about the topic, or you are utterly dishonest.

> > Note also that using the same models to retro'predict' the period
> > 1940-1970 we get a prediction of rising temperatures (as usual, CO2
> > was rising right on schedule) but the actual data was FALLING
> > temperatures. Falling bad enough and long enough to start 'new ice
> > age' hysteria, which I remember quite well, it was right before
> > nuclear winter became a thing. Nuclear winter was another theory
> > touted as infallible by people with a political agenda. Also false.
>
> I think the "hysteria" was based on the fact that the current interglacial
> has gone on for a long time.

No, it was based on a prolonged period of FALLING TEMPERATURES.

> As for nuclear winter, there is only one way to test it for sure and I don't
> think it would be a good idea to do the experiment. Do you?

Sigh... It WAS tested. The theory is "large amounts of smoke, et al..." remember the firrst Gulf War? When Saddam ignited the Iraqi oil wells? It was enough to test the effect. The theory was wrong.

> > There is none of this "Well if we ass-ume the models are correct,
> > because..." bullshit. The models are not correct. Their predictions
> > are false. It simply does not matter how many people say they are
> > God given.
>
> You have already tried to explain that in your universe, CO2 blocks as much
> incoming radiation as outgoing radiation. Somehow I think this invalidates
> your rant completely as it simply is not true.

Yes, you will grasp at a triviality, but somehow 20 YEARS OF NOT RISING TEMPERATURES means nothing. Not to mention the magical effect of increased CO2 causing oceans to warm...

> > I don't NEED a superior alternative theory. But I have one anyway-
> > increased insolation. Which explains the actual climate record,
> > INCLUDING the 'pause'.
>
> Please cite the published data that support your increased insolation
> theory. As far as I am aware there is no such data.

Look it up your own fucking self. You have already established that actual data and correct predictions are not necessary for a theory to be true...

> > Not to mention the warming we have seen ON OTHER PLANETS.
> >
>
> Again, this needs a cite.

Because you are utterly unfamilar with basic facts of science...

Look it up yourself.

> > B) Climatologists have a record of lies, bullshit and incompetence
> > in their publication. ("Hide the decline", seawater temperature
> > measurements, Mann's 'hockey stick')
> >
> > They are to be distrusted. They have a financial incentive to say
> > what they say and to NOT say the opposite.
>
> Unlike, say, big oil companies?

Why would 'big oil' bother conspiring against AGW? Their product has inelastic demand. Raise taxes on it and they just make that much more money.

But, at least you have accepted that AGW supporters are not to be trusted. That lies and bullshit are a serious problem.

> > C) There is no economic reason for warming to be bad. You claim
> > that some adjustments would have to be made in some regions. So
> > what? Even the predicted rate of warming is much slower than
> > ordinary economic adjustment that goes on all day every day. Yes,
> > you literally CAN move an entire city for free, as far as you want,
> > so long as you have a reasonable time frame. You go on hysterically
> > claiming that people will be unable to adjust and all kinds of evil
> > will befall. Bullshit.
>
> There are two separate questions, is AGW taking place? And if so, is it bad
> for the economies of various countries around the world? If you have a
> thousand years, I suppose moving a city is not such a problem, but if you
> have 50 years, then I think there is a problem. But the main problem is not
> cities, the problem is agriculture.

What really fucking annoys me, is that I have gone into exactly this before. 50 years? Yes, you can move a city of a million people 2000 miles in 50 years. With all their stuff- homes, businesses, entertainments, utilities, roads, bridges. etc. For free. It has happened before. In a first world country. In living memory.

MANY TIMES.

> > In the atmosphere. Once again, the atmosphere warms, not the
> > surface. But in reality the surface is warming, not the atmosphere.
> > Theory A predicts A, theory B predicts B. We see B. Which theory is
> > correct?
>
> The surface definitely warms, the sea warms, ice melts, and the atmosphere
> also warms.

Sigh... Why would the sea warm? The entire AGW model is based on the ATMOSPHERE warming because CO2 traps IR. Anything else that warms would only be secondary to that.

THE ATMOSPHERE ISN'T WARMING.

Surface warming? Increased insolation (ie the sun's brighter).

> > My own personal economic expertise.
> >
>
> Which comes from what formal training and study?

Formal training and study. Do you not know who I am?

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:42:19 PM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
>
>> > A) Understand this in your soul- AGW THEORIES ARE WRONG ON THEIR
>> > FACE. They predicted warming as a consequence of increased CO2 over
>> > the past 20 years, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED (the 'pause'). Period. End
>> > of discussion. The models are simply fundamentally wrong.
>>
>> It's mainly sea temperatures that are expected to show the most direct
>> evidence of increase. Global sea temperatures are surprisingly hard to
>> measure accurately. But it can be done.
>
>
>No, it is in fact atmospheric temperatures that were predicted to rise. Which you would know if you ever read anything on the topic. The AGW crowd didn't bring up sea temperatures until it turned out their model didn't work and its predictions were garbage. But, increased insolation WAS causing the sea surface to warm, so they went with that, under the correct assumption that the sheeple are too ignorant and stupid to understand how major the shift was.
>
>So, to start off with, no honest discussion can be had with you, because you have no factual basis. You either literally know nothing about the topic, or you are utterly dishonest.
>
>
>
>
>> > Note also that using the same models to retro'predict' the period
>> > 1940-1970 we get a prediction of rising temperatures (as usual, CO2
>> > was rising right on schedule) but the actual data was FALLING
>> > temperatures. Falling bad enough and long enough to start 'new ice
>> > age' hysteria, which I remember quite well, it was right before
>> > nuclear winter became a thing. Nuclear winter was another theory
>> > touted as infallible by people with a political agenda. Also false.

...

>
>No, it was based on a prolonged period of FALLING TEMPERATURES.

25 years. But the trendline from 1850 to current is a much MORE
prolonged period.

>> As for nuclear winter, there is only one way to test it for sure and I don't
>> think it would be a good idea to do the experiment. Do you?
>
>
>Sigh... It WAS tested. The theory is "large amounts of smoke, et al..." remember the firrst Gulf War? When Saddam ignited the Iraqi oil wells? It was enough to test the effect. The theory was wrong.

The Gulf war smoke was all in the lower atmosphere. That dissipated
VERY quickly, though I think it did affect two years of the Indian
monsoon.

Nuclear mushroom clouds inject their pollution into the upper
atmosphere where stuff dissipates much more slowly. Various volcanos
are a better model for this.

>Yes, you will grasp at a triviality, but somehow 20 YEARS OF NOT RISING TEMPERATURES means nothing. Not to mention the magical effect of increased CO2 causing oceans to warm...

1998 and 1999 were extraordinarily warm. If you set your baseline
back twenty years instead of the fifteen that all the other deniers
use, you get a definite upwards trend.

>Why would 'big oil' bother conspiring against AGW? Their product has
>inelastic demand. Raise taxes on it and they just make that much more
>money.

There is a surprising amount of elasticity here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-insidious-truth-about-bcs-carbon-tax-it-works/article19512237/
http://tinyurl.com/q9gl4sa

"At the same time, it’s been extraordinarily effective in tackling the
root cause of carbon pollution: the burning of fossil fuels. Since the
tax came in, fuel use in B.C. has dropped by 16 per cent; in the rest
of Canada, it’s risen by 3 per cent (counting all fuels covered by the
tax)."

[Shawn Wilson]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4:15:23 PM UTC-7, Greg Goss wrote:


> >> > Note also that using the same models to retro'predict' the period
> >> > 1940-1970 we get a prediction of rising temperatures (as usual, CO2
> >> > was rising right on schedule) but the actual data was FALLING
> >> > temperatures. Falling bad enough and long enough to start 'new ice
> >> > age' hysteria, which I remember quite well, it was right before
> >> > nuclear winter became a thing. Nuclear winter was another theory
> >> > touted as infallible by people with a political agenda. Also false.
> ...
> >
> >No, it was based on a prolonged period of FALLING TEMPERATURES.
>
> 25 years. But the trendline from 1850 to current is a much MORE
> prolonged period.

And if we go back further we get falling temperatures and if we go back further than that we get rising again, and...

Gee, it like the climate naturally varies and thus the variation we see is natural and there is nothing to worry about...

> >Yes, you will grasp at a triviality, but somehow 20 YEARS OF NOT RISING TEMPERATURES means nothing. Not to mention the magical effect of increased CO2 causing oceans to warm...
>
> 1998 and 1999 were extraordinarily warm. If you set your baseline
> back twenty years instead of the fifteen that all the other deniers
> use, you get a definite upwards trend.

Yes, you can use natural variation to get ANY TREND YOU WANT.

> >Why would 'big oil' bother conspiring against AGW? Their product has
> >inelastic demand. Raise taxes on it and they just make that much more
> >money.
>
> There is a surprising amount of elasticity here.

Nope. Look at how much gas prices have to change before people change driving habits, and how little they change even then.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:36:57 PM UTC-6, David DeLaney wrote:

> On 2015-06-30, Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > AGW theory predicts ATMOSPHERIC warming, not surface warming. Surface
> > warming, which they show here, can only be a function of increased insolation
> > (brighter Sun). There would be LESS energy reaching the surface if AGW were
> > correct. It would be intercepted by the atmosphere rather than reach 'land'.

> ... thus showing Shawn knows nothing about either radioactivity, thermal
> conductivity, or how work has to convert to heat. Anyone surprised?

He only claims to be an economist, not a physicist.

Thus, the idea that the Earth's surface could heat up because of the
"greenhouse effect", since in addition to incoming solar radiation, there is
also heat radiating away from the Earth (it isn't at absolute zero, after all)
which goes out as long-wave infrared (since the Earth's surface is cooler than
the Sun's) which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb...

thus reducing output rather than increasing input, but with the same result,
things get warmer on Earth,

may be beyond his understanding.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 11:29:15 AM UTC-6, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> Not a one way effect. The atmosphere absorbs energy on the way down too.

a) Heat absorbed on the way down isn't blocked from warming the Earth, because
the atmosphere touches the Earth and exchanges heat with it by convection.

b) The spectral distribution of solar radiation peaks in the visible light
region; sunshine contains plenty of short-wave infrared and ultraviolet too.
The Earth, however, gives off heat as long-wave infrared, because its surface
is much cooler than the Sun's. And it's long-wave infrared that carbon dioxide
absorbs.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:23:22 PM UTC-6, Shawn Wilson wrote:

> How much of an expert do you think I have to be to equal anyone here? Do you
> think you have a science education? If so, why do you consider AGW to be
> correct despite its predictions being literally no better than chance?

I can't speak for him, but I hold an M. Sc. in nuclear physics.

John Savard

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/2/15 1:07 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:37:15 AM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>
>>> OK then
>>
>> No. You asked about qualifications in science, generally. That's it.
>> And you haven't EVER measured up.
>
>
> And you have demonstrated here that your qualifications in science generally are none. You would rather foam and the mouth and launch personal attacks than discuss a relevant issue and explain and defend your views on it.
>
> That is not the attitude of a scientist.

You haven't given me reason to expend the effort for you. If you made
me an offer, like Terry, of $500 to be held in escrow by a lawyer if I
performed a scientific analysis for you? Great. But for free? No. You
claimed QUALIFICATIONS -- which you don't have any of. I have -- and can
demonstrate by actual degrees and patents -- qualifications in the
fields of several sciences. You are not as qualified as I am -- and
there are a lot of people here far more educated in the sciences,
including the hard sciences, than I am, let alone than you.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/2/15 6:04 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> "Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Shawn Wilson wrote:
>
>>> I don't NEED a superior alternative theory. But I have one anyway-
>>> increased insolation. Which explains the actual climate record,
>>> INCLUDING the 'pause'.
>>
>> Please cite the published data that support your increased insolation
>> theory. As far as I am aware there is no such data.
>>
>>> Not to mention the warming we have seen ON OTHER PLANETS.
>>
>> Again, this needs a cite.
>
> Pournelle (a less obscenely loud skeptic than Shawn) has posted links
> to evidence of a warming trend on Mars and I think Neptune. I don't
> know if the current dramatic fading of Jupiter's red spot would be
> related to heating.

It is basically mostly untrue, and utterly irrelevant.

This site: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Covers pretty much every single anti-AGW argument and dismantles them
effectively.

[John F. Eldredge]

According to official records, the worldwide average atmospheric
temperature is rising (I am speaking of the average calculated over a one-
year period, not the weather on any one day).

[Moriarty]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 8:46:43 AM UTC+10, Shawn Wilson wrote:

<snip>

>Do you not know who I am?

If delusion were caused by midi-chlorians, Shawn's count would be off the charts.

-Moriarty

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 7/1/2015 5:36 PM, Don Bruder wrote:
> What's that old line? Oh, yeah... Something real close to
>
> "Never argue with an idiot. Bystanders might not be able to tell which
> of you is which."
>
> In this case, it's at least amusing to note that the primary idiot is
> keeping to his usual pattern.
>

I like this version: "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and
the pig likes it."

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

Thanks, excellent link to actual research results, measurements of solar
radiation, etc.

[J. Clarke]

In article <hcSdndr5rtnpqAvI...@supernews.com>, platinum198
@pants.btinternet.com says...

That "excellent link" is excellent marketing, but has little to do with
science. Unfortunately the whole debate has been driven by marketing,
not by science.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 2:42:19 PM UTC-7, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
>
>
>>> A) Understand this in your soul- AGW THEORIES ARE WRONG ON THEIR
>>> FACE. They predicted warming as a consequence of increased CO2 over
>>> the past 20 years, IT HAS NOT HAPPENED (the 'pause'). Period. End
>>> of discussion. The models are simply fundamentally wrong.
>>
>> It's mainly sea temperatures that are expected to show the most
>> direct evidence of increase. Global sea temperatures are
>> surprisingly hard to measure accurately. But it can be done.
>
>
> No, it is in fact atmospheric temperatures that were predicted to
> rise. Which you would know if you ever read anything on the topic.
> The AGW crowd didn't bring up sea temperatures until it turned out
> their model didn't work and its predictions were garbage. But,

Atmospheric temperatures are closely linked to sea temperatures. As air
flows over warmer seas, of course it will heat up. Are you aware that over
75% of the Earth's surface is covered by water?

> increased insolation WAS causing the sea surface to warm, so they
> went with that, under the correct assumption that the sheeple are too
> ignorant and stupid to understand how major the shift was.

There is no evidence of increased insolation that could explain global
warming observed. Cite:

Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 570, id.A85, 18 pp
Reconstruction of total and spectral solar irradiance from 1974 to
2013 based on KPVT, SoHO/MDI, and SDO/HMI observations

Yeo, K. L.; Krivova, N. A.; Solanki, S. K.; Glassmeier, K. H.




Read this and many other papers before making your claims.

>
> So, to start off with, no honest discussion can be had with you,
> because you have no factual basis. You either literally know nothing
> about the topic, or you are utterly dishonest.
>
>
>
>
>>> Note also that using the same models to retro'predict' the period
>>> 1940-1970 we get a prediction of rising temperatures (as usual, CO2
>>> was rising right on schedule) but the actual data was FALLING
>>> temperatures. Falling bad enough and long enough to start 'new ice
>>> age' hysteria, which I remember quite well, it was right before
>>> nuclear winter became a thing. Nuclear winter was another theory
>>> touted as infallible by people with a political agenda. Also false.
>>
>> I think the "hysteria" was based on the fact that the current
>> interglacial has gone on for a long time.
>
>
> No, it was based on a prolonged period of FALLING TEMPERATURES.
>
>
>
>
>> As for nuclear winter, there is only one way to test it for sure and
>> I don't think it would be a good idea to do the experiment. Do you?
>
>
> Sigh... It WAS tested. The theory is "large amounts of smoke, et
> al..." remember the firrst Gulf War? When Saddam ignited the Iraqi
> oil wells? It was enough to test the effect. The theory was wrong.

The smoke was in the lower atmosphere, but nuclear warfare and volcanoes
throw dust high in the stratosphere, and volcanic eruptions are known to
have caused severe climate change, e.g., in 1816.

>
>>> There is none of this "Well if we ass-ume the models are correct,
>>> because..." bullshit. The models are not correct. Their
>>> predictions are false. It simply does not matter how many people
>>> say they are God given.
>>
>> You have already tried to explain that in your universe, CO2 blocks
>> as much incoming radiation as outgoing radiation. Somehow I think
>> this invalidates your rant completely as it simply is not true.
>
>
> Yes, you will grasp at a triviality, but somehow 20 YEARS OF NOT
> RISING TEMPERATURES means nothing. Not to mention the magical effect
> of increased CO2 causing oceans to warm...

So if you get the physics and chemistry completely wrong, but continue to
rant, it is only a minor issue?

>
>
>
>>> I don't NEED a superior alternative theory. But I have one anyway-
>>> increased insolation. Which explains the actual climate record,
>>> INCLUDING the 'pause'.

As explained above, there are no published papers that actually demonstrate
your increased insolation.

>>
>> Please cite the published data that support your increased insolation
>> theory. As far as I am aware there is no such data.
>
>
> Look it up your own fucking self. You have already established that

Ah, good old obscenity, the last refuge of those whose arguments are fallign
apart under inspection.

> actual data and correct predictions are not necessary for a theory to
> be true...
>
>
>
>>> Not to mention the warming we have seen ON OTHER PLANETS.
>>>
>>
>> Again, this needs a cite.
>
> Because you are utterly unfamilar with basic facts of science...
>
> Look it up yourself.
>

I have, and there is so little data that we really do not understand what is
going on. Whatever it is, if there are temperature rises (disputed) they
are not due to an increase in solar heating.

>
>
>
>>> B) Climatologists have a record of lies, bullshit and incompetence
>>> in their publication. ("Hide the decline", seawater temperature
>>> measurements, Mann's 'hockey stick')
>>>
>>> They are to be distrusted. They have a financial incentive to say
>>> what they say and to NOT say the opposite.
>>
>> Unlike, say, big oil companies?
>
>
> Why would 'big oil' bother conspiring against AGW? Their product has
> inelastic demand. Raise taxes on it and they just make that much
> more money.

So Imhofe should just shut up?

>
> But, at least you have accepted that AGW supporters are not to be
> trusted. That lies and bullshit are a serious problem.
>
>
>
>>> C) There is no economic reason for warming to be bad. You claim
>>> that some adjustments would have to be made in some regions. So
>>> what? Even the predicted rate of warming is much slower than
>>> ordinary economic adjustment that goes on all day every day. Yes,
>>> you literally CAN move an entire city for free, as far as you want,
>>> so long as you have a reasonable time frame. You go on hysterically
>>> claiming that people will be unable to adjust and all kinds of evil
>>> will befall. Bullshit.
>>
>> There are two separate questions, is AGW taking place? And if so,
>> is it bad for the economies of various countries around the world?
>> If you have a thousand years, I suppose moving a city is not such a
>> problem, but if you have 50 years, then I think there is a problem.
>> But the main problem is not cities, the problem is agriculture.
>
>
>
> What really fucking annoys me, is that I have gone into exactly this
> before. 50 years? Yes, you can move a city of a million people 2000
> miles in 50 years. With all their stuff- homes, businesses,
> entertainments, utilities, roads, bridges. etc. For free. It has
> happened before. In a first world country. In living memory.
>
> MANY TIMES.

Ooh, tell us more. The last time I looked at a map, the cities seemed to be
in pretty much the same place they were 50 years earlier. Perhaps you can
cite a specific example.

>
>
>
>
>
>>> In the atmosphere. Once again, the atmosphere warms, not the
>>> surface. But in reality the surface is warming, not the atmosphere.
>>> Theory A predicts A, theory B predicts B. We see B. Which theory
>>> is correct?
>>
>> The surface definitely warms, the sea warms, ice melts, and the
>> atmosphere also warms.
>
>
> Sigh... Why would the sea warm? The entire AGW model is based on
> the ATMOSPHERE warming because CO2 traps IR. Anything else that
> warms would only be secondary to that.
>
> THE ATMOSPHERE ISN'T WARMING.
>
> Surface warming? Increased insolation (ie the sun's brighter).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> My own personal economic expertise.
>>>
>>
>> Which comes from what formal training and study?
>
>
> Formal training and study. Do you not know who I am?

I refuse to stoop to the use of obscenities.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

If by "marketing" you mean "discussion of the actual issues, with facts
and research discussing exactly what's going on, and showing that the
anti-AGW group either does not know what it's talking about, or is
deliberately and presumably with malice aforethought misinterpreting or
flat-out lying", yes, marketing.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Why would 'big oil' bother conspiring against AGW? Their product has
>> >inelastic demand. Raise taxes on it and they just make that much more
>> >money.
>>
>> There is a surprising amount of elasticity here.
>
>
>Nope. Look at how much gas prices have to change before people change driving habits, and how little they change even then.

Or, look at the cite that you clipped off there. One province in
Canada added a carbon tax equivalent to 7 cents a litre (30 cents a US
gallon?) and demand went down 16%. In other similar provinces, demand
went up.

[William December Starr]

In article <MPG.30000d7ab...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:

> That "excellent link" is excellent marketing, but has little to do
> with science. Unfortunately the whole debate has been driven by
> marketing, not by science.

On one side, yes.

-- wds (that would be the wrong side, by the way)

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:mn78gf$efa$1
@panix2.panix.com:

> In article <MPG.30000d7ab...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> That "excellent link" is excellent marketing, but has little to do
>> with science. Unfortunately the whole debate has been driven by
>> marketing, not by science.
>
> On one side, yes.

Grant applications are marketing, too.

>
> -- wds (that would be the wrong side, by the way)
>
>

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/3/15 8:27 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:mn78gf$efa$1
> @panix2.panix.com:
>
>> In article <MPG.30000d7ab...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> That "excellent link" is excellent marketing, but has little to do
>>> with science. Unfortunately the whole debate has been driven by
>>> marketing, not by science.
>>
>> On one side, yes.
>
> Grant applications are marketing, too.

I work in that area. Yeah, but if anyone thinks the big money's on that
side, they're laughably delusional.

[Cryptoengineer]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA4CCB1A6C6B...@69.16.179.43:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:mn78gf$efa$1
> @panix2.panix.com:
>
>> In article <MPG.30000d7ab...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>> That "excellent link" is excellent marketing, but has little to do
>>> with science. Unfortunately the whole debate has been driven by
>>> marketing, not by science.
>>
>> On one side, yes.
>
> Grant applications are marketing, too.

I find the claim that there is a vast worldwide
conspiracy of climatologists to create a
false tale of anthropgenic global warming,
for the sake of better grant opportunities,
to be at the 'that's so stupid its funny' level.

OTOH, I find the notion that people whose
fortunes were created by activities which
continue and increase AGW, will resist the
suggestion that they stop doing what made them
rich, and use some of their fortune to try to
discredit those they see as existential threats
to their fortunes, entirely plausible.

pt

[J. Clarke]

In article <XnsA4CCE8D8C5...@216.166.97.131>,
treif...@gmail.com says...

>
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA4CCB1A6C6B...@69.16.179.43:
>
> > wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in news:mn78gf$efa$1
> > @panix2.panix.com:
> >
> >> In article <MPG.30000d7ab...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> "J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>> That "excellent link" is excellent marketing, but has little to do
> >>> with science. Unfortunately the whole debate has been driven by
> >>> marketing, not by science.
> >>
> >> On one side, yes.
> >
> > Grant applications are marketing, too.
>
> I find the claim that there is a vast worldwide
> conspiracy of climatologists to create a
> false tale of anthropgenic global warming,
> for the sake of better grant opportunities,
> to be at the 'that's so stupid its funny' level.

If a "vast worldwide conspiracy" was needed you would have a point, but
the number of people actually getting paid to create and run climate
models is much smaller than you might imagine, and certainly not
sufficient to qualify as "vast".

However, regardless of any "conspiracy", that specific site is all
marketing--it's trying to sell a viewpoint, claiming that it "shows the
science", when it's really showing propaganda, and going into denial on
any evidence that might contradict its viewpoint.

Another failing of the public schools--most students never actually see
a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal--they think that science
looks like dumbed-down textbooks acceptable in both Texas and
California, and when they see something that looks like that they think
they're seeing "science".

> OTOH, I find the notion that people whose
> fortunes were created by activities which
> continue and increase AGW, will resist the
> suggestion that they stop doing what made them
> rich, and use some of their fortune to try to
> discredit those they see as existential threats
> to their fortunes, entirely plausible.

And yet somehow they haven't managed to put together a cohesive effort
to counter the global warming advocates. Hat, tinfoil.

[William December Starr]

In article <MPG.30014b821...@news.eternal-september.org>,
"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> said:

> treif...@gmail.com says...

>
>> OTOH, I find the notion that people whose
>> fortunes were created by activities which
>> continue and increase AGW, will resist the
>> suggestion that they stop doing what made them
>> rich, and use some of their fortune to try to
>> discredit those they see as existential threats
>> to their fortunes, entirely plausible.
>
> And yet somehow they haven't managed to put together a cohesive
> effort to counter the global warming advocates.

Wut?


Oh, I get it: you're going to put all your chips on the word
'cohesive' and whatever meaning you want to give it.


-- wds

[Brian M. Scott]

On 4 Jul 2015 03:43:22 -0400, William December Starr
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:mn82qq$3bh$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

Heartland Institute, anyone? And they’re just the most
obvious.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[David DeLaney]

... burned.

BURNED by JOHN quadliboc SAVARD.

Dave, is it time to remind Shawn that since his claims are the extraordinary
ones, he doesn't GET to tell other folks "look it up yourself" to try to
verify them, even though he doesn't seem to realize no matter how many times
others tell him about it that his position is the one that's not reality-based?
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[C. E. Gee]

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 8:46:51 PM UTC-7, Robert Bannister wrote:
> Shawn's always complaining there are no real figures for climate change.
> I don't suppose he'll believe these either, but I thought I'd offer them:
>
> http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
>
> For myself, I see a problem with "warming" because when it's warm there,
> it's probably cold here or somewhere else. There is also plenty of
> evidence of previous warm as well as cold periods in historical times,
> but figures are figures.
> --
> Robert Bannister
> Perth, Western Australia

Climate Change Deniers! You should read the article linked below.

http://www.kinzuakid.blogspot.com/2015/06/climate-change-deniers.html

NAMASTE

C.E. Gee aka Chuck

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/4/15 6:28 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2015-07-02, Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 12:23:22 PM UTC-6, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>> How much of an expert do you think I have to be to equal anyone here? Do you
>>> think you have a science education? If so, why do you consider AGW to be
>>> correct despite its predictions being literally no better than chance?
>>
>> I can't speak for him, but I hold an M. Sc. in nuclear physics.
>
> ... burned.
>
> BURNED by JOHN quadliboc SAVARD.

That's a pretty epic-level burn.

>
> Dave, is it time to remind Shawn that since his claims are the extraordinary
> ones, he doesn't GET to tell other folks "look it up yourself" to try to
> verify them, even though he doesn't seem to realize no matter how many times
> others tell him about it that his position is the one that's not reality-based?
>

He's reminded of this ALL THE TIME, but remember that to him, his
assertion of competence, and his own interpretation of the (lack of)
competence of others looms so huge that he won't -- CAN'T -- entertain
the idea that his claims are anything less than fact, let alone
extraordinary and demanding evidence.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 7:53:31 PM UTC-7, Cryptoengineer wrote:


> I find the claim that there is a vast worldwide
> conspiracy of climatologists to create a
> false tale of anthropgenic global warming,
> for the sake of better grant opportunities,
> to be at the 'that's so stupid its funny' level.

What happens to their jobs if AGW when AGW is finally falsified? No climate 'crisis' no need for climatologists.

> OTOH, I find the notion that people whose
> fortunes were created by activities which
> continue and increase AGW, will resist the
> suggestion that they stop doing what made them
> rich, and use some of their fortune to try to
> discredit those they see as existential threats
> to their fortunes, entirely plausible.

Name a climatologist whose career job and grant money is not AGW dependent then. How about the activists and government bureaucrats?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 3:28:21 AM UTC-7, David DeLaney wrote:


> Dave, is it time to remind Shawn that since his claims are the extraordinary
> ones, he doesn't GET to tell other folks "look it up yourself" to try to
> verify them, even though he doesn't seem to realize no matter how many times
> others tell him about it that his position is the one that's not reality-based?

If YOU aren't familiar with basic facts, that isn't MY problem.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4:51:28 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:


> He only claims to be an economist, not a physicist.
>
> Thus, the idea that the Earth's surface could heat up because of the
> "greenhouse effect", since in addition to incoming solar radiation, there is
> also heat radiating away from the Earth (it isn't at absolute zero, after all)
> which goes out as long-wave infrared (since the Earth's surface is cooler than
> the Sun's) which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb...
>
> thus reducing output rather than increasing input, but with the same result,
> things get warmer on Earth,
>
> may be beyond his understanding.

AGW theory is predicated on not only CO@ induced warming, but additional warming from increased evaporation/humidity because H2O is a MUCH more common greenhouse gas. The marginal impact of the actual CO2 levels is minor.

Didn't you know this?

That didn't happen. The expected impact on the climate record if that were the mechanism is not present anywhere.

Statistically do you know what that would look like?

Now, economically the notion that warming is bad is nonsense. What we see is isolated reports from limited areas that don't reflect the general case, ecological problems predating warming (overgrazing, etc), and unsubstantiated scare stories. As I have pointed out many times, we can literally move cities for free to deal with sea level rise. Lost land area? More than compensated for in unfrozen tundra.

Benefits of warming and higher CO2? Longer, more intense growing seasons and generally increased fertility. Also now barren areas like glaciers and deserts become capable of supporting life that they could not before.

Oh, ecology 101- deserts are not caused by heat.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 4:54:37 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:


> > Not a one way effect. The atmosphere absorbs energy on the way down too.
>
> a) Heat absorbed on the way down isn't blocked from warming the Earth, because
> the atmosphere touches the Earth and exchanges heat with it by convection.

Yeah, heat rises... The sad thing is, you are so ignorant/untruthful that I HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT...

Also, if AGW were causing sea temperature increases we would see higher atmospheric temps, we don't. There is no mechanism in AGW for seas to warm but not the air.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:


> > And you have demonstrated here that your qualifications in science generally are none. You would rather foam and the mouth and launch personal attacks than discuss a relevant issue and explain and defend your views on it.
> >
> > That is not the attitude of a scientist.
>
>
> You haven't given me reason to expend the effort for you.

Once again you demonstrate that you do not possess the mind of a scientist.

[Lynn McGuire]

The faking of the global temperature record by AGW advocates continues to bother me greatly, "The fiddling with temperature data is
the biggest science scandal ever":

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

"When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to
which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the
Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."

Lynn

[David Johnston]

On 7/5/2015 3:21 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Friday, July 3, 2015 at 7:53:31 PM UTC-7, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>
>> I find the claim that there is a vast worldwide
>> conspiracy of climatologists to create a
>> false tale of anthropgenic global warming,
>> for the sake of better grant opportunities,
>> to be at the 'that's so stupid its funny' level.
>
>
> What happens to their jobs if AGW when AGW is finally falsified? No climate 'crisis' no need for climatologists.

That is an utterly absurd claim. People didn't need AGW to find study
of long term weather phenomena like El Nino worthwhile. It's a
particularly absurd claim coming from a soi-disant economist. After
all, what need is there for economists when they can't predict when the
next depression or boom is scheduled?

[Shawn Wilson]

On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 3:15:33 PM UTC-7, David Johnston wrote:


> > What happens to their jobs if AGW when AGW is finally falsified? No climate 'crisis' no need for climatologists.
>
> That is an utterly absurd claim. People didn't need AGW to find study
> of long term weather phenomena like El Nino worthwhile.

Funny how many fewer climatologists there were before AGW then...

[William December Starr]

In article <mnc84f$u9q$1...@dont-email.me>,

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> said:

> The faking of the global temperature record by AGW advocates
> continues to bother me greatly,

Things that don't exist bother you a lot, huh?

-- wds

[Cryptoengineer]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6de2bc4a-6996-492b...@googlegroups.com:

This is one of those 'facta' that Shawn expects other to swallow
without question. Does he have the faintest evidence that this is
the case?

pt

[David Johnston]

And how many fewer were there?

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I have one in a jar on my desk.

[Kevrob]

Cognitive Dissonance Dept.

You sling around the very loaded term "deniers," redolent of "Holocaust'
deniers," then tell us "I bow to the divine in you."

Now, the English "goodbye" is a contraction of "god be with you," and
when I say that or the Spanish "adios" I am not actually calling on a
deity, either. But I imagine if you have gone to the trouble to use a
greeting from the sub-continent, you may sincere.

I'd prefer your dropping the inflammatory "deniers" to some rote
sign off based on mumbo-jumbo.

`Course, that's just me being "fact-based," and I don't discount that
AGW could be a plausible description of what is going on. Forgive
me if I apply the same skepticism to the theory that I would to any
other panic, especially when the remedies proposed are more of that
ol' debbil, statism.

Ever read "After Communism" by Robert Heilbroner?
The New Yorker, September 10, 1990 P. 91

"Socialism may not continue as an important force now that Communism is finished. But another way of looking at socialism is as the society that
must emerge if humanity is to cope with the ecological burden that economic growth is placing on the environment."

IOW, using environmentalism to sneak a planned economy back in after it
failed so massively. The watermelon strategy. Green on the outside...

Kevin R

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 19:55:25 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:2f70df82-91cd-4c90...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Saturday, July 4, 2015 at 10:03:28 AM UTC-4, C. E. Gee wrote:

[...]

>> Climate Change Deniers! You should read the article linked below.

>> http://www.kinzuakid.blogspot.com/2015/06/climate-change-deniers.html

>> NAMASTE

> Cognitive Dissonance Dept.

> You sling around the very loaded term "deniers," redolent

> of "Holocaust' deniers," [...]

And rightly so. The evidence for climate change is at this
point more than strong enough to justify the expression.

[...]

> `Course, that's just me being "fact-based," [...]

No, it’s you ignoring the evidence. Given your subsequent
reference to ‘more of that ol’ debbil, statism’, one might
suspect that at least some of your ignorance is the result
of ideological blinders.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:17:21 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>On 7/5/15 5:38 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> And you have demonstrated here that your qualifications in science generally are none. You would rather foam and the mouth and launch personal attacks than discuss a relevant issue and explain and defend your views on it.
>>>>
>>>> That is not the attitude of a scientist.
>>>>>>
>>> You haven't given me reason to expend the effort for you.
>>
>> Once again you demonstrate that you do not possess the mind of a scientist.
>>
>
> I have one in a jar on my desk.

A mind? Or a brain?




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 00:34:07 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
<l...@sff.net> wrote
in<news:991kpadv86hn72oes...@reader80.eternal-september.org>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:17:21 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E.
> Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

>> On 7/5/15 5:38 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:

[...]

>>> Once again you demonstrate that you do not possess the
>>> mind of a scientist.

>> I have one in a jar on my desk.

> A mind? Or a brain?

Could be both -- at least if one is a bear of very little
brain.

<https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3213/3065946839_959bbe03ff_b.jpg>

[David DeLaney]

On 2015-07-06, Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote

>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/5/15 5:38 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>>> Once again you demonstrate that you do not possess the mind of a scientist.

>>> I have one in a jar on my desk.
>
>> A mind? Or a brain?
>
> Could be both -- at least if one is a bear of very little brain.
>
><https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3213/3065946839_959bbe03ff_b.jpg>

Sorry, I have to:

Brain and Brian; what is brain?

Dave, and Who's on first. ...no, her, not him

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 7/6/15 12:34 AM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:17:21 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/15 5:38 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And you have demonstrated here that your qualifications in science generally are none. You would rather foam and the mouth and launch personal attacks than discuss a relevant issue and explain and defend your views on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the attitude of a scientist.
>>>>>>>
>>>> You haven't given me reason to expend the effort for you.
>>>
>>> Once again you demonstrate that you do not possess the mind of a scientist.
>>>
>>
>> I have one in a jar on my desk.
>
> A mind? Or a brain?
>
>
>
>

Both!

[Anthony Nance]

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:17:21 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>On 7/5/15 5:38 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And you have demonstrated here that your qualifications in science generally are none. You would rather foam and the mouth and launch personal attacks than discuss a relevant issue and explain and defend your views on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the attitude of a scientist.
>>>>>>>
>>>> You haven't given me reason to expend the effort for you.
>>>
>>> Once again you demonstrate that you do not possess the mind of a scientist.
>>>
>>
>> I have one in a jar on my desk.
>
> A mind? Or a brain?
>

A scientist![1]

[1] It's either a big jar or a little scientist.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Well educated people here are aware, of course, that Ryk is
paraphrasing Robert Bloch.

pt

[John F. Eldredge]

Rainfall patterns are shifting as a side-effect of the temperature
changes.

Move cities for free? There is no such thing as moving even a single
household for free. Considerable investment of time and effort is
required. The majority of the US population lives along the east, west,
and Gulf coasts, and having to build new infrastructure and buildings for
those residing in areas that will eventually be flooded by rising sea
levels will be a huge expense.

[William December Starr]

In article <2f70df82-91cd-4c90...@googlegroups.com>,

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:

> I'd prefer your dropping the inflammatory "deniers" to some rote
> sign off based on mumbo-jumbo.

It's not inflammatory. It's descriptive.

-- wds

[Anthony Nance]

Yes we know. I temporarily de-squelched my inner child
to make the kind of teeny joke that was more prevalent
here in years gone by.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 9:23:46 PM UTC-7, Brian M. Scott wrote:


> And rightly so. The evidence for climate change is at this
> point more than strong enough to justify the expression.

The evidence that the AGW crowd has been falsifying and lying about for decades?

How many 'adjustments' to the temperature record do you think are justified? And doesn't it say something that every adjustment is *up*? Because, as a scientist myself, the number is actually zero.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 8:25:27 AM UTC-7, John F. Eldredge wrote:


> > AGW theory is predicated on not only CO@ induced warming, but additional
> > warming from increased evaporation/humidity because H2O is a MUCH more
> > common greenhouse gas. The marginal impact of the actual CO2 levels is
> > minor.
> >
> > Didn't you know this?
> >
> > That didn't happen. The expected impact on the climate record if that
> > were the mechanism is not present anywhere.
> >
> > Statistically do you know what that would look like?
> >
> > Now, economically the notion that warming is bad is nonsense. What we
> > see is isolated reports from limited areas that don't reflect the
> > general case, ecological problems predating warming (overgrazing, etc),
> > and unsubstantiated scare stories. As I have pointed out many times, we
> > can literally move cities for free to deal with sea level rise. Lost
> > land area? More than compensated for in unfrozen tundra.
> >
> > Benefits of warming and higher CO2? Longer, more intense growing
> > seasons and generally increased fertility. Also now barren areas like
> > glaciers and deserts become capable of supporting life that they could
> > not before.
> >
> > Oh, ecology 101- deserts are not caused by heat.
>
> Rainfall patterns are shifting as a side-effect of the temperature
> changes.
>
> Move cities for free? There is no such thing as moving even a single
> household for free.

Guess again. I've gone into this very thing before, so you can just look it up.

> Considerable investment of time and effort is
> required. The majority of the US population lives along the east, west,
> and Gulf coasts, and having to build new infrastructure and buildings for
> those residing in areas that will eventually be flooded by rising sea
> levels will be a huge expense.

Guffaw. You ALMOST grabbed on to the relevant idea, but missed.

We. Can. Move. Cities. For. Free.

We. Have. Done. So. In. Living. Memory.

In. A. First. World. Country.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 9:17:39 AM UTC-7, Shawn Wilson wrote:


> > And rightly so. The evidence for climate change is at this
> > point more than strong enough to justify the expression.

For want of anywhere else to put this-

today's junkscience.com-

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/07/06/the-truth-about-summer-mortality-rates/

Mean number of daily deaths each month and mean monthly temperatures, England and Wales, August 2013 to July 20141,2,3


Year Month Mean daily deaths Five-year average daily deaths Mean monthly temperature Five-year average temperature
2013 August 1,190 1,195 16.7 15.8
2013 September 1,238 1,230 13.6 13.7
2013 October 1,295 1,306 12.2 10.5
2013 November 1,341 1,349 6.1 7.2
2013 December 1,442 1,574 6.1 3.3
2014 January 1,473 1,599 5.4 3.3
2014 February 1,467 1,480 5.9 3.9
2014 March 1,379 1,417 7.4 5.9
2014 April 1,349 1,373 9.8 8.7
2014 May 1,286 1,291 11.9 11.1
2014 June 1,267 1,237 14.9 14.0
2014 July 1,268 1,205 17.4 16.2

[John F. Eldredge]

Yes, I know you asserted, in messages such as <https://groups.google.com/
d/msg/rec.arts.sf.written/jWEAFieBIIs/YBqvfpvKEZwJ>, that building a
replacement for a building is free, but no one who has ever had to pay
for the construction of a building would agree that it was "free". Plus,
if you have to buy a new plot of land on which to build, you have the
cost of purchasing the land as well as the cost of construction.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 9:55:22 AM UTC-7, John F. Eldredge wrote:


> > Guess again. I've gone into this very thing before, so you can just
> > look it up.
>
> Yes, I know you asserted, in messages such as <https://groups.google.com/
> d/msg/rec.arts.sf.written/jWEAFieBIIs/YBqvfpvKEZwJ>, that building a
> replacement for a building is free, but no one who has ever had to pay
> for the construction of a building would agree that it was "free". Plus,
> if you have to buy a new plot of land on which to build, you have the
> cost of purchasing the land as well as the cost of construction.

The new building would be built regardless. It is just a question of where. The additional cost of building there rather than here is zero. Ie the cost is the same either way. Land cost? Out one pocket and in another. Not relevant to society as the total stays the same.

[Greg Goss]

"John F. Eldredge" <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 14:34:14 -0700, Shawn Wilson wrote:

>> and unsubstantiated scare stories. As I have pointed out many times, we
>> can literally move cities for free to deal with sea level rise. Lost
>> land area? More than compensated for in unfrozen tundra.

>Move cities for free? There is no such thing as moving even a single
>household for free. Considerable investment of time and effort is
>required. The majority of the US population lives along the east, west,
>and Gulf coasts, and having to build new infrastructure and buildings for
>those residing in areas that will eventually be flooded by rising sea
>levels will be a huge expense.

Shawn claims that normal churn can cover reasonable-time moves. If
infrastructure wears out and needs to be replaced on a thirty year
timescale, he claims you just build the next iteration where you NOW
need it. Kinda like moving the rust belt to the sun belt.

I disagree with him, but it's a bit more complex than you're reading
it from him. Shawn isn't the best at explaining what he has in mind.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

[move cities for free under normal churn]

>Land cost? Out one pocket and in another. Not relevant to society as the total stays the same.

Nope. If one city is dying and the new one is new, the land prices
are dramatically different. In 1992 I sold an entire triplex in good
condition for C$32,000 after more than four years of TRYING to sell
it. I was glad to get that much. In 1997, I bought an apartment on
the second floor of a small apartment building for $215,000.

Guess which city was growing and which one was shrinking.

If we're moving cities because the old location is becoming untenable,
you cannot just factor "land value" out of the formula like that. The
whole reason for the move is that the old land is heading towards
worthless.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 10:42:03 AM UTC-7, Greg Goss wrote:


> [move cities for free under normal churn]
>
> >Land cost? Out one pocket and in another. Not relevant to society as the total stays the same.
>
> Nope. If one city is dying and the new one is new, the land prices
> are dramatically different.

Societies wealth is the sum of As wealth and Bs wealth. B giving more money to A doesn't change the total society has.

> Guess which city was growing and which one was shrinking.
>
> If we're moving cities because the old location is becoming untenable,
> you cannot just factor "land value" out of the formula like that. The
> whole reason for the move is that the old land is heading towards
> worthless.

If you are arguing that the loss of the old land to 'global warming' is a net loss to society you have to factor in the increased value of other land due to global warming.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 7/5/2015 9:34 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Jul 2015 22:17:21 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/5/15 5:38 PM, Shawn Wilson wrote:
>>> On Thursday, July 2, 2015 at 5:06:00 PM UTC-7, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And you have demonstrated here that your qualifications in science generally are none. You would rather foam and the mouth and launch personal attacks than discuss a relevant issue and explain and defend your views on it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not the attitude of a scientist.
>>>>>>>
>>>> You haven't given me reason to expend the effort for you.
>>>
>>> Once again you demonstrate that you do not possess the mind of a scientist.
>>>
>>
>> I have one in a jar on my desk.
>
> A mind? Or a brain?
>

I suppose that all of us here could claim to have the mind of an
extremely literal and autistic scientist on our desks. :)

--
Veni, vidi, snarki.

[pete...@gmail.com]

Shawn is making an error typical of undergraduate economics majors (and
not unknown among academic economists at every level); assuming things
are fungible which aren't. They oversimplify, which is fine for writing
papers, but not for real-world applications.

Tundra, even warmed up tundra, is NOT fungible as farmland with land in
the Great Plains, or the Valley of California. The soil is very poor, and
as the underlying permafrost warms up, unstable and marshlike. There aren't
even earthworms in large areas of the Canadian and Alaskan north.

Even if usable soil existed, and the climate became suitable (as it
would in Shawn's spherical cow world) many plants are photo-periodic -
their flowering time is determined by night length. If the right period
comes too early or too late, they will flower at the wrong time, and the
crop will fail.

That's just one example of Shawn's failure to understand the way the
world actually is. I won't go into the myriad ways that AGW could
wreak ecological havoc, when it causes changes at rates far higher than
are seen outside mass extinctions.

It's telling that when it was pointed out to him that ocean acidification
was already causing problems for ocean invertebrates (which form their shells
from calcium carbonate), his response was that 'plants are also invertebrates'.

Idiot.

pt

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:


> > If you are arguing that the loss of the old land to 'global warming' is
> > a net loss to society you have to factor in the increased value of other
> > land due to global warming.
>
> Shawn is making an error typical of undergraduate economics majors (and
> not unknown among academic economists at every level); assuming things
> are fungible which aren't. They oversimplify, which is fine for writing
> papers, but not for real-world applications.

Oh, jesus fucking christ... ANOTHER idiot with no training who thinks he understands economics...

Tundra is nice and simple and easy to explain and understand.

Do you REALLY want my to go into the continuous distribution of land and its qualities? About marginal improvements along the entire range?

YOU, dumbass, are in no position whatsoever to blithely declaim that someone else is making a mistake.

> Tundra, even warmed up tundra, is NOT fungible as farmland with land in
> the Great Plains, or the Valley of California. The soil is very poor, and
> as the underlying permafrost warms up, unstable and marshlike. There aren't
> even earthworms in large areas of the Canadian and Alaskan north.

Indeed, much of the plant life in America is not dependent on earthworms because there were none after the ice age.

> Even if usable soil existed, and the climate became suitable (as it
> would in Shawn's spherical cow world) many plants are photo-periodic -
> their flowering time is determined by night length. If the right period
> comes too early or too late, they will flower at the wrong time, and the
> crop will fail.

This would be the 'professional farmers are stupid and incompetent' part of the discussion then...

> That's just one example of Shawn's failure to understand the way the
> world actually is. I won't go into the myriad ways that AGW could
> wreak ecological havoc, when it causes changes at rates far higher than
> are seen outside mass extinctions.

Yawn. Unlike you I have bothered examining the historical climate record. Nothing new is going on. If the world were coming to an end it would have done so via the Medieval Climate Optimum or the Holocene Maximum. It didn't.

Chicken Little is wrong. Again.

[Kevrob]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 11:42:48 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <2f70df82-91cd-4c90...@googlegroups.com>,
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
>
> > I'd prefer your dropping the inflammatory "deniers" to some rote
> > sign off based on mumbo-jumbo.
>
> It's not inflammatory.

`Course `tis.

> It's descriptive.

So would be "AGW opponent," or "AGW skeptic" or "those unconvinced of the
AGW hypothesis." "Denier" is a rhetorical trick, and a cheap one.


Kevin R

[William December Starr]

In article <309b0d9e-7780-4e9c...@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:

> William December Starr wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
>>
>>> I'd prefer your dropping the inflammatory "deniers" to some rote
>>> sign off based on mumbo-jumbo.
>>
>> It's not inflammatory.
>
> `Course `tis.

Only if you want it to be.

>> It's descriptive.
>
> So would be "AGW opponent," or "AGW skeptic" or "those unconvinced of the
> AGW hypothesis." "Denier" is a rhetorical trick, and a cheap one.

No it isn't. Frankly, I think you're squirting ink here.

-- wds

[J. Clarke]

In article <cvvkv3...@mid.individual.net>, jo...@jfeldredge.com
says...

If you have to move everything by tomorrow it's expensive. If you have
to move it by the year 3000 it's much less of an issue.

You seem to see this spectre of 200 feet of water over New York by the
end of the century or something. The actual projection is inches--there
is going to be no urgent pressure to relocate whole cities.

This sort of chicken-little-ism is one of the reasons that people don't
buy the whole AGW premise.

If you're going to advocate something, at least learn the facts about
whatever you are advocating.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 13:42:56 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:309b0d9e-7780-4e9c...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> So would be "AGW opponent," or "AGW skeptic" or "those
> unconvinced of the AGW hypothesis." "Denier" is a
> rhetorical trick, and a cheap one.

That would be the case only if there were still any serious
debate. There isn’t.

[pete...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 4:32:47 PM UTC-4, Shawn Wilson wrote:
> On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > > If you are arguing that the loss of the old land to 'global warming' is
> > > a net loss to society you have to factor in the increased value of other
> > > land due to global warming.
> >
> > Shawn is making an error typical of undergraduate economics majors (and
> > not unknown among academic economists at every level); assuming things
> > are fungible which aren't. They oversimplify, which is fine for writing
> > papers, but not for real-world applications.
>
>
> Oh, jesus fucking christ... ANOTHER idiot with no training who thinks
> he understands economics...
> Tundra is nice and simple and easy to explain and understand.
> Do you REALLY want my to go into the continuous distribution of land and
> its qualities? About marginal improvements along the entire range?

The above three sentences pretty well demonstrate that I'm correct in my
judgement of Shawn.

This isn't about economics. Its about botany and agriculture. I don't
care what economic incentives you offer a wheat plant, it will bloom
when the day/night ratio starts to be to its liking. If the climate at that
time isn't in sync with what it needs, no seed will be produced and
the crop will fail.

> Indeed, much of the plant life in America is not dependent on
> earthworms because there were none after the ice age.

Name two economically significant plants which originated north of the
glacial maximum, and which are thus adapted to life without earthworms.
(ProTip: Blueberries and cranberries aren't economically significant).

pt

[Shawn Wilson]

On Monday, July 6, 2015 at 2:51:51 PM UTC-7, pete...@gmail.com wrote:


> > Tundra is nice and simple and easy to explain and understand.
> > Do you REALLY want my to go into the continuous distribution of land and
> > its qualities? About marginal improvements along the entire range?
>
> The above three sentences pretty well demonstrate that I'm correct in my
> judgement of Shawn.
>
> This isn't about economics. Its about botany and agriculture. I don't
> care what economic incentives you offer a wheat plant, it will bloom
> when the day/night ratio starts to be to its liking. If the climate at that
> time isn't in sync with what it needs, no seed will be produced and
> the crop will fail.

Yawn. The system is continuous. The range moves, it doesn't cease to exist.

> > Indeed, much of the plant life in America is not dependent on
> > earthworms because there were none after the ice age.
>
> Name two economically significant plants which originated north of the
> glacial maximum, and which are thus adapted to life without earthworms.

OK. Blueberries and cranberries.

> (ProTip: Blueberries and cranberries aren't economically significant).

They are if you are a blueberry or cranberry farmer.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I've also heard it attributed to Bradbury, but Bloch is the one I would
have expected it from.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

And this is Shawn at his classical best: Ignore the standards that
other people have, apply his own. These will shift whenever the shifting
favors him, but any shift on the other side will be met with shrill
insistence that they're moving the goalposts or "are too stupid to
understand". In this case, he spent lots of time saying that moving
cities are free, because he was applying the cost across all of society,
but as soon as Peter used a definition of economic significance that
applied across all of society, Shawn shifted to a very narrow definition
and didn't actually address the point made.

[Cryptoengineer]

"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote in
news:mnf245$kiu$1...@dont-email.me:

I'd always heard Bloch, and Wikipedia concurrs. The full quote is:
"Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small
boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk,"

pt