Hubris runs riot in Global Warmies
Andre Jute
of Global Warming that the Global Warmies are always accusing their
critics of mistaking a little local weather for global climate --
exactly the sin the Global Warmies themselves commit daily, failing
over themselves to be the first on television to pontificate that some
squall in the bay is a result of Global Warming.
In the 1990s the Global Warmies mistook a little natural rise in
temperature on the upswing from the Little Ice Age a few hundred years
ago for -- the doors to Hell, glowing red with heat. The world would
frizzle and burn within three hundred years! The oceans would boil
away!
These selfsame Global Warmies failed to foresee that the world was
already swinging into a cooler period even as they screeched their
dire warnings. They're still going on about Global Warming, even
though temperatures have not recovered to the level of 1998, a
pleasantly mild year, I seem to remember.
Now we have one Phil H, who describes himself as a "Global warming
skeptic and Jute critic". Perhaps he doesn't like me putting down some
idiots who still suffer under the myth that the North Panel of the NAS
supported Michael Mann's Hockey Stick, which is the main tool in the
hands of the IPCC for inducing climactic (heh-heh) terror in world
leaders. Anyhow, Phil H, a wannabe skeptic and critic, tells us:
>Fluctuations in short term weather are unpredictable
>but longer term trends in climate change are "less" so.
It all depends on how long Phil H is prepared to accept as "longer
term", but my first observation is that this "global warming critic"
has been taken in by the hubris of the Global Warming industry, which
pretends they can predict climate decades and centuries ahead.
It's all crap. The most powerful force working on the climate of our
little planet is the sun, and its most powerful mechanism which
affects world climate -- temperature, among other facets -- is sunspot
activity.
Sunspot activity has peaks and troughs on an approximately eleven-year
cycle.
Anyone who claims to predict the weather beyond ten years is claiming
to be God, because around the eleventh year he'll have to control the
Sun itself if his prediction is not to be turned into another Global
Warmie lie by sunspots.
So far they can't even predict the weather for those ten years before
the sunspots do something uncontrollable.
Those clowns can't even predict the weather for next year.
All the climatologists who pretend to know so much that they should,
without cost-benefit analysis, be the driving force behind spending
trillions of our money on controlling the climate generations hence --
could not even forecast that the last uprise in global temperature
would soon be followed by a cooling period, a feat that is easily
managed by any less arrogant scientist or even by historicans.
Natural fluctuations, Virginia, natural fluctuations. It's the iron
law of nature.
Don't believe everything you hear, Phil H. Especially about the
weather.
Andre Jute
Visit Andre's books at
http://www.audio-talk.co.uk/fiultra/THE%20WRITER'S%20HOUSE.html
Lickle
Andre Jute wrote:
> It is one of the ironies that amuses those of use who watch the farce
> of Global Warming that the Global Warmies are always accusing their
> critics of mistaking a little local weather for global climate --
<snip>
Andre Jute
> Andre Jute wrote:
> It is one of the ironies that amuses those of use who watch the farce
> of Global Warming that the Global Warmies are always accusing their
> critics of mistaking a little local weather for global climate --
> rec...bicycles....tech?
>
Send some tech, Lickle. And keep the faith. -- AJ
Phil H
Separating these kind of variables is part of the process when looking
at climate change.
Beyond 10 years...............in one billion years from now water will
not exist on this planet. In about 5 billion years the sun will have
grown large enough (red giant) to engulf all of the planets in the
solar system :)
As a global warming skeptic, I do not believe we know enough about all
the variables to predict a long term (centuries) warming trend i.e.
there are other variables that can overshadow any effects of CO2
increase. However, unlike you, I do have more than a smattering of
respect for the scientific community and the scientific method.
Phil H
Ben C
[...]
> As a global warming skeptic, I do not believe we know enough about all
> the variables to predict a long term (centuries) warming trend i.e.
> there are other variables that can overshadow any effects of CO2
> increase. However, unlike you, I do have more than a smattering of
> respect for the scientific community and the scientific method.
Interesting thing about the "scientific community" is that it isn't
necessary that individual scientists are all that objective.
Many scientists really want their pet theory or whatever they're working
on to work. It's part of what drives them. They will drop a bad idea
eventually but only after giving it a damn good run for its money.
They don't actually distort data or cook things unless they're corrupt,
which I don't think most of them are, but they are biased.
Science itself progresses by selecting what turns out to be right and
rejecting what doesn't (modulo a few mistakes). Science is bigger than
the scientists themselves, because eventually you can _tell_ which
theories are right and which wrong objectively.
If you read Scientific American, which I recommend, most of the articles
are written not by journalists but by the people actually doing the
research. You get usually very well-written and interesting but also
extremely biased pieces. There's seldom or never the paragraph at the
end which says, "but this might be all wrong as Prof. so-and-so
maintains" that you get in New Scientist.
The point is, you can have a "scientific consensus" on anything if you
just pick the right set of scientists. The scientific community is not a
bunch of Socratic philosophers taking a balanced view of everything.
It's small groups of people with their heads down running in different
directions after wild geese. Occasionally somebody catches one, which
makes it all worthwhile.
I mean no disrespect to scientists or the scientific method-- I think
this is the system that works best. Just don't expect balanced judgments
from scientific communities.
pdxrandonneur
<SNIP global warming drivel>
\|||/
(o o)
,---ooO--(_)--------.
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| RETARDED |
| Troll! |
`-------------ooO---'
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo
I know that there has to be some fucking news group completely
dedicated to having flame wars over this issue, so if you are not a
sad damaged twerp in desperate need of attention like andre, please
take the disscussions there.
-Rando
Andre Jute
I have no problem with that. My problem is with the hubris of
politicized forecasters who think they are above statistical
procedure.
> Beyond 10 years...............in one billion years from now water will
> not exist on this planet. In about 5 billion years the sun will have
> grown large enough (red giant) to engulf all of the planets in the
> solar system :)
As I said, the Sun is the most powerful agent of climate, not puny man
even with all his industry and automobiles.
> As a global warming skeptic, I do not believe we know enough about all
> the variables to predict a long term (centuries) warming trend i.e.
> there are other variables that can overshadow any effects of CO2
> increase.
Then we're in agreement.
>However, unlike you, I do have more than a smattering of
> respect for the scientific community and the scientific method.
I take up this subject in the concurrent thread
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/9852d09cb7a0e4e7?hl=en#
Andre Jute
"Cycling wisdom" is an oxymoron
Andre Jute
> Interesting thing about the "scientific community" is that it isn't
> necessary that individual scientists are all that objective.
Nor en masse. Over in the concurrent thread
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.bicycles.tech/browse_thread/thread/9852d09cb7a0e4e7?hl=en#
I show that the National Academy of Science wanted so much for the
Mann articles to be true that they contrived to let the media think
they approved of the papers, despite two Panels headed by
distinguished academicians, Wegman and North, both condemning Mann
lock-stock-and-barrel and finding each of his conclusions individually
unproven. That's a more serious case than even Lysenkoism of wishful
thinking interfering with scientific truth.
> Science itself progresses by selecting what turns out to be right and
> rejecting what doesn't (modulo a few mistakes). Science is bigger than
> the scientists themselves, because eventually you can _tell_ which
> theories are right and which wrong objectively.
I certainly hope that becomes true in Global Warming pretty soon,
because the money wasted on pointlessly combating global warming
should be spent on Third World Aid, or this will be another case, like
Rachel Carson's influence in the banning DDT, where some saint of the
do-gooders will by the law of unintended effect be turned into an evil
genius of genocide, in Carson's case for killing what by now is
hundreds of millions of the most vulnerable people on earth my malaria
and starvation directly attributable to the banning of DDT, which
never killed a single person by cancer, that being the ostensible
reason for banning it.
> The point is, you can have a "scientific consensus" on anything if you
> just pick the right set of scientists.
In the case under discussion, the IPCC has within less than two
decades corrupted an entire branch of science, climatology. See my
development of the key case in the accompanying thread 'Do politicized
"scientists" practicing scientism deserve respect?'
>The scientific community is not a
> bunch of Socratic philosophers taking a balanced view of everything.
Whoa! Adversarial science, like adversarial politics, is not a bad
thing at all. We want the bad idea exposed. It is when thuggery and
unethical pressure to join some politically inspired false "consensus"
interferes in free speech that the system goes wrong. The IPCC and
much of the academic community now practices a kind of fascism in
climatology that is absent from other branches of science.
> I mean no disrespect to scientists or the scientific method-- I think
> this is the system that works best. Just don't expect balanced judgments
> from scientific communities.
Actually I do, though not necessarily in the short run. The only
reason the big Global Warming Scam hasn't been exposed yet is the
amount of money the IPCC and governments have been throwing around in
this field, and the extraordinary pressures brought to bear on even
the mildest of critics, which really deserves to be called scientific
fascism. In all other sciences, today you can probably count a fallacy
being exposed within five years, at most a decade. The right decision
is by definition balanced <g>.
Andre Jute
Been pissing outside all day. Where's the global warming those clowns
promised?
Andre Jute
Kiss my arse, sonny.
Ben C
> On Jul 31, 9:59�pm, Ben C <spams...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> Whoa! Adversarial science, like adversarial politics, is not a bad
> thing at all. We want the bad idea exposed. It is when thuggery and
> unethical pressure to join some politically inspired false "consensus"
> interferes in free speech that the system goes wrong. The IPCC and
> much of the academic community now practices a kind of fascism in
> climatology that is absent from other branches of science.
>
>> I mean no disrespect to scientists or the scientific method-- I think
>> this is the system that works best. Just don't expect balanced judgments
>> from scientific communities.
>
> Actually I do, though not necessarily in the short run. The only
> reason the big Global Warming Scam hasn't been exposed yet is the
> amount of money the IPCC and governments have been throwing around in
> this field, and the extraordinary pressures brought to bear on even
> the mildest of critics, which really deserves to be called scientific
> fascism. In all other sciences, today you can probably count a fallacy
> being exposed within five years, at most a decade.
Even in theoretical physics there are quite a few people starting to
whinge about string theory. It's not exactly thought to be a fallacy,
but it might be a dead horse, and the complaint is that maybe not enough
funding and people are pursuing alternatives.
The point is, other sciences and other scientific communities are
somewhat political too, even when they aren't involved in the wider
political sphere of the UN and global policy-making and so on.
It is also true that the old left wing has joined in GW, and that's
always going to bring some thuggery with it. Note that objectivity was
never high on the agenda for these guys-- they may not officially be
Marxists any more but they haven't forgotten everything they learned in
Sociology of Knowledge class.
pdxrandonneur
> Kiss my arse, sonny
Jesus! How nasty do I have to be to get killfiled? Well here goes...
(*Flame on*)
Look andrea, you *clearly* have an advanced case of Usenet
Persecution Disorder. I understand that you were violently molested in
the bathroom in gradeschool, or almost stangled to death by your
mother during a fit of her (perfectly understandable) postpartum
depression, or whatever, and that you can no more control your idiotic
behaviour than a crackhead can stop selling his ass on the street for
the next hit, but this is 2009 and psychiatry has made many real
advances. I know that the last time you went in they tied you to a
gurney and ran electrical current through your head, let the orderlies
beat and sodomize you while you were doped up on thorazine, and then
left you in that nasty room for weeks on end with that guy who ate his
whole family, but those were the bad old days and we don't do those
kind of things to mental patients anymore (at least not when we have
some muslims prisoners to brutalize instead). Today they will simply
give you a nice prescription for some happy pills and a comfortable
chair with a compassionate and understanding professional who will
help you sort out all those painful issues you are hiding from here on
the usenet. And I KNOW that all your supporters here in RBT will be
VERY VERY happy to kick in with some money if you can't afford the
doctor's bills. Truly.
Because from here on out the delusions of grandeur and persecution
are going to give way to a full blown paranoid psychosis, and as much
as I would just *love* to read about how you slit your own throat
after painting yourself pink and wrapping your head in tin foil to
stop the mind control rays from the CIA, this is a treatable condition
and no one, no matter how fucking annoying, no matter how really
amazingly arrogantly annoying, no matter how narcissisticly in love
with his own retarded usenet drivel, no matter how seduced by his own
stupid voice, no matter how drunk on his own bullshit, no matter how
driven by unresolved childhood anxiety to smear his verbal diarrea all
over a public forum, deserves that kind of a death. Really. Except
maybe you. But in the name of decency and mercy and all that, get help
before it is too late. And please for the love of the God and The
Devil and whoever, cancel your fucking internet service.
-Rando
Andre Jute
Now Rando -- you don't mind if I call you Rando, do you? -- just lie
back on the comfortable couch -- ye-es, that's it! -- and inhale
deeply, let your stomach go, relax, more deep breath, ye-esssss, good.
Now, in your own time tell me if you really believe all that, or
perhaps can't let on, because the other roadies will ostracize you for
breaking ranks and "betraying" their religion, that instead you
believe this:
Natural fluctuations, Rando, natural fluctuations. It's the iron
law of nature.
Don't believe everything you hear, Rando. Especially about the