The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: will
About
User Name: will
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation:
Interests:
Gender: None Specified
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Monday, June 29, 2009
Last Visit: Sunday, January 6, 2019 5:02:51 PM
Number of Posts: 1,167
[0.12% of all post / 0.31 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Global Warming Reality
Posted: Sunday, January 6, 2019 5:00:32 PM
RuthP wrote:
You are using "hypothesis" incorrectly. You are pretending "hypothesis" means "somebody's wild hair". That is incorrect, as I think you already know. A hypothesis is a proposed, falsifiable mechanism to explain factual observations. Accurate observations are facts. Facts either support or falsify a hypothesis. You cannot say "it's a hypothesis not a fact": that is senseless, meaningless. It confounds two very different things: facts (observations), and a mechanism to explain the facts (hypothesis).

RuthP, I was going to correct you on the part I’ve highlighted in bold, but FounDit beat me to it with his reply. I can assure you his ignorance of scientific procedure and terminology is quite genuine. I, and others, have tried to explain… as baffling as it seems, he’s not pretending. d'oh!

Romany is right; although I personally have no qualms about accusing Foundit of being stupid. The patronising “I’m disappointed in you..” personal attack on RuthP’s intelligence and motives, in place of any considered response at all, says it all.

Of course, pointing this out will completely overturn almost two centuries of climate science, and expose the Leftist conspiracy for what it is, but that’s a risk I’m prepared to take. Eh?


.
Topic: New Year Good Year
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 3:46:40 PM
Woah! Have I just been outed as an angry gay swan? Eh?


.
Topic: Latest Climate Change News. Updates Welcome.
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 3:39:20 PM
No need for an emoji, Hope123, I fully got you.

progpen wrote:
The use of waste fuel has been a holy grail of nuclear power for some time and I remember a few years back writing about a system devised in France here on this forum (I think).

The real holy grail of nuclear power generation is fusion. There was news at the beginning of last year that the substantial advantages of fusion power may be a working reality in as little as 15 years. I don’t know how realistic this timescale is, or if the announcement had anything to do with boosting investor confidence after Trump’s announcement to cut it’s commitment to an international project with the same aims.

I recently spoke to someone who works at the JET facility in Oxfordshire who estimates 30 years before a fusion is adding power to the grid… depending on what effect Brexit has Brick wall


.




Topic: Global Warming Reality
Posted: Friday, January 4, 2019 3:33:08 PM
FounDit wrote:
Over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of the Climate Change group has come true. We did not die in the predicted Freeze.

This is typical of the vague generalisations on which your opinions are based.

FounDit wrote:
I never said scientists agreed to global cooling, I said that was being put forth in the 70's.

This is typical of the ‘I never said...’ quibbling you revert to when specific facts are presented that clearly dispute your vague generalisations.

FounDit wrote:
Well, actually, NONE of the predictions of the hippy types OR THE SCIENTISTS have come true, as I wrote. Neither have any of the predictions of politicians or Hollywood types come true either.

Rinse and repeat.

All typical of the circular argument that progpen (a ‘hippy type’, no doubt) correctly predicted on page one.

FounDit wrote:
An evaluation of the link provided by will, which...

tl;dr


.
Topic: Global Warming Reality
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 11:15:35 AM
FounDit wrote:
Over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of the Climate Change group has come true. We did not die in the predicted Freeze.

And FounDit wrote:
I never said scientists agreed to global cooling, I said that was being put forth in the 70's.

Ah, my bad. I assumed your vaguely defined “Climate Change group” would naturally include the most qualified voices on climate science: actual climate scientists.

In which case, can I suggest that when you previously spelt out your position (slowly so we could all understand it), it would have been more accurate if you had said ‘over the last 60 years, NONE of the predictions of hippy types has come true...’

Could I further suggest that basing your views on what ‘hippy types’ say, rather than what the experts say, is a pretty good definition of gullible. I’ve had many arguments with hippy types about aromatherapy; the fact that Bach flower remedies fail to live up to their claims is no reason to reject the scientific consensus on medicine.

FounDit wrote:
Ah, YOU have explained the global cooling myth to me so I should just accept it, right?

Not at all. What you should do, if you wish to confirm or deny the veracity of a claim, is assess the facts for yourself. As you said yourself “Being a citizen is hard work. You have to think, analyze, reason.”
Hope123 and I have already offered several starting points, here, here, here and here. If you don’t like those sources – too Leftist, perhaps. Or not the opinions of hippy types, or whatever your current believability criteria is – this one is an explanation of the myth by the author of the original Newsweek article that you keep citing.

FounDit wrote:
These predictions were carried by such publications as Newsweek, Time, Life, National Geographic, and others.

That is what the media does; they publish public interest pieces, with varying degrees of factual accuracy. Unless you are gullible enough to believe all you read in the media, it should come as no surprise to discover that some media article are inaccurate. This is where the scientific method and peer review triumphs over the media and the word of hippy types; science is constantly under review – for example, by the early 1980’s the minority scientific view that the climate would continue to cool had been completely replaced by the early stages of the overwhelming consensus we have today. Again, it seems you clearly don’t understand how science works.

Besides that, all those publications also published articles during the 70’s (and before, and since) that were / are in line with the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, for example, here. Why are you not citing these? Your global cooling fallacy not only misrepresents the scientific position, it also misrepresents the balance of media coverage.

FounDit wrote:
I tend to think for myself…

Peter-whats-his-face used to say this when rejecting evolutionary science. With the best will in the world, you are clearly not an expert. You have demonstrated on this site that you don’t even understand prevalence ratios in statistics, you are hardly qualified to understand the complexities of climate science. If you are drawing your conclusion from thinking about old arguments with hippy types and 40 year old media reports, rather than the most accurate and up to date expert opinion, it’s no wonder you are so confused.

FounDit wrote:
… and I haven't yet seen any evidence presented that establishes the fact of anthropogenic climate change. But as I said, I'm willing to look at any you can produce. Simply present it, if you have it.

Haven’t seen or have chosen to ignore, because of some conspiracy theory about manipulated science as a ploy by the political Left? Think

Here is the most comprehensive source that represents the current overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change – a consensus that approaches 100% in correlation to relevant fields of expertise, and includes every scientific body of national and international standing, and includes every Government on the planet (with the possible exception of the Trump administration), and includes virtually every multinational corporation (from the largest banks and technology companies to ExxonMobil and Maersk), and even includes the the most vocal contrarians, such as Patrick Michaels and Nic Lewis.



.
Topic: Global Warming Reality
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 11:01:46 AM
progpen wrote:
I think the only thing missing from that post is:

BECAUSE I SAID SO, NYAAA!

That particular post was also missing the usual vague tin foil hat nonsense about the political Left ,Hippy types and the Salam witch trials… so it wasn’t quite as bad as it could have been. I'll see if I can get him back on track Shhh

Hope123 wrote:
BTW - as far as I know the writer of the article that I quoted -and put both into italics and quotation marks so it could not be missed - doesn't know you so how could he decide whether or not you said we should ignore science. But it is "a foolish thing to say"and you "are not surprised given the source".

Apologies, Hope123. I should have put my replies to your and progpen’s comments in a different post, separating it from the inevitable shit storm that results from attempting to converse with FounDit.

It’s clear he’s not bothering to read any of the links provided – it’s easier to to claim there is ‘absolutely no evidence’ if one makes a concerted effort not to look – but I took it for granted that I was actually replying to someone who is able to follow the flow of a conversation, without realising FounDit would swoop in like the proverbial pigeon.

As say, I was going to point out the flawed logic in a prior post, but feared it’s subtle significance would be misunderstood and misused, leading to a further round of circular arguments. Turns out I was right. Brick wall

Hope123 wrote:
Will, in fact that aerosol legislation did affect and is still affecting positively the ozone hole as shown in these photos. A win when science and govt work together. With a caveat. We now have to address that the replacements and a healed layer can affect global warming.

You’re right, the science and responsible politics that led to the Montreal Protocol is a shining example of what is possible, but that’s a different ‘aerosol’ issue to what Bryson was studying in the mid 70’s.

It was Bryson’s paper on stratospheric sulfur aerosols that led him to predict global cooling. Bryson’s wasn’t the only paper predicting cooling, but a review of the scientific literature published during that time found global cooling to be a minority concern – with around 85% correctly predicting the warming observed today.

As I say, the irony of Bryson being wrong in the 70’s, and being the main source of the ‘scientists were predicting global cooling’ fallacy, is that he is so often quoted by deniers, in an appeal to authority, as the ‘father of scientific climatology’ who rejects the consensus. d'oh!


.






Topic: New Year Good Year
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 10:54:52 AM
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
Epiphileon wrote:
. . . the petty squabbles . . .

What do you mean "petty squabbles?
I don't have petty anything.
Are you calling me petty? I'll tell you, MY squabbles are important!

Whistle Whistle

Well there’s the paradox. When my family tell me to cheer up and stop being grumpy, I always point out that I enjoy being grumpy. Dancing


.
Topic: Latest Climate Change News. Updates Welcome.
Posted: Thursday, January 3, 2019 10:51:28 AM
There’s no need to return to the “dark ages”… someone’s hyperbole has been rubbing off on you. Speak to the hand Whistle

The latest IPCC report contains a framework for a global sustainable energy supply. I’m not personally qualified to say how credible it is, but it probably represents the widest scope of expertise. Obviously different countries will have different agendas, and there will be competition from certain vested interests – nuclear industry claims that nuclear reactors are CO2 free is not strictly speaking wrong, but it does put a positive spin on the bigger picture.

An analogy of this apparently insurmountable reliance on carbon intensive energy is the situation with plastics. Hippy types have been warning about plastics in the environment for decades, in the last 5 years, with the wider public – and the political and economical motivation that follows – behind the cause, it’s suddenly become apparent how much of what we thought was essential is just waste, or easily replaced by a superior option.

.
Topic: New Year Good Year
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 9:12:50 AM
Epiphileon Applause Applause Applause I could not have said it better myself.

I wish everyone a new year full of love, happiness and the wonder of learning.


.
Topic: Latest Climate Change News. Updates Welcome.
Posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2019 9:10:22 AM
Nuclear is often touted as being CO2 free, but an issue frequently overlooked by proponents of nuclear power is the unsustainable amounts of greenhouse gases produced in the process of mining and milling uranium. http://www.energyscience.org.au/FS02%20CO2%20Emissions.pdf

I notice the section on mining in Hope123's myth busters link doesn’t even address the issue.

Cradle to grave, CO2 emissions from nuclear are slightly less than coal and on a par with gas. Nuclear is a degree worse than both for other harmful gases. All are unsustainable if we are to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the IPCC recommendations.

The silver bullet, or elephant in the room, is energy reduction. This politically sensitive, but readily achievable, route is never likely to be at the top of Bill Gates’ Christmas list, but the reality is never more obvious than at this time of year when our landfill sites are already filling up with the useless crap produced specifically to fuel our consumer driven festivities. Bah-humbug! Whistle


.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.