tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post2194491145093861046..comments2024-03-28T10:08:06.291-05:00Comments on Give2Attain: Climate Change RevisitedJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-45582804301833031262014-03-28T15:51:04.206-05:002014-03-28T15:51:04.206-05:00This seems to be an even-handed treatment.
http:...This seems to be an even-handed treatment. <br />http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/15/co2-lags-temperature-in-the-ice-core-record-doesnt-that-prove-the-ipcc-wrong/<br /><br />I have found others which also say that CO2 goes up AFTER temperature, certainly, but that it then contributes to further warming until temps start back down (note: NATURALLY). It then lags THAT change. If you had the chart that Al Gore used, it would be perfectly plain to see; he just doesn't see it. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-34315607851844289882014-03-28T15:14:06.491-05:002014-03-28T15:14:06.491-05:00NOAA Ice Core
I see data, lots of data... However...<a href="http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core" rel="nofollow">NOAA Ice Core</a><br /><br />I see data, lots of data... However I don't see anything or anyone saying that Gore is wrong regarding causality. And no I am not start reviewing ice data...<br /><br /><a href="http://nypost.com/2014/02/17/al-gores-global-warming-rhetoric-is-put-on-ice/" rel="nofollow">NY Post Gore is Wrong</a><br /><a href="http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/18941-arctic-sea-ice-and-al-gores-prediction-2013" rel="nofollow">Truth Out Artic Ice</a>Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-299525590876540052014-03-28T10:01:23.367-05:002014-03-28T10:01:23.367-05:00Try this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/pal...Try this:<br />http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-corejerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-33717177283227164632014-03-28T09:31:34.531-05:002014-03-28T09:31:34.531-05:00What Really Happened
"cores from different p...<a href="http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html" rel="nofollow">What Really Happened</a><br /><br />"cores from different places and by many different scientists, and every single one of them shows exactly the opposite of what Al Gore says about the data."<br /><br />Source the EVERY...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-78279288986564369132014-03-28T09:22:49.253-05:002014-03-28T09:22:49.253-05:00"We are back at it again..."
Correct. ..."We are back at it again..."<br /><br />Correct. Once again we see that the people who want to believe their own BS will fudge the data to prove what they want it to prove. Those with access to the unaltered data have a better chance of knowing the truth. Ask yourself why these folks are saying there is NOT a pause? There must be data somewhere that says there is, and some people obviously are believing that, rather than the hand-waving arguments advanced in this article. And once again, notice that while these folks insist that the world is getting warmer-- true or not it doesn't matter at this point-- they simply ASSUME the cause is human CO2! They offer no proof whatsoever for this being the case, yet they want to blame all of humanity for not preventing these natural disasters. Ever notice how people losing an argument on facts and logic become ever more insistent about it? jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-84278602285949416742014-03-28T09:09:52.240-05:002014-03-28T09:09:52.240-05:00"How would you prove scientifically and repea..."How would you prove scientifically and repeatedly that CAGW is not a fact? Your "opposite Gore" argument did nothing for me."<br /><br />Then you aren't paying attention. Al Gore's ice core data has been repeatedly analyzed-- cores from different places and by many different scientists, and every single one of them shows exactly the opposite of what Al Gore says about the data. He insists that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is causal in nature, when the actual data shows clearly that increased temperature PRECEDES (and thus causes) CO2 increases! QED. <br /><br />Do the experiment yourself; any fifth-grader can. Take a can of soda pop out of the fridge, open it, and let it set on the counter. What happens? That's right, it loses its "fizz." The CO2 dissolved in the soda comes out of it, because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water does. SO.... if "something" heats up the 3/4 of this earth covered by water, what happens to CO2? And because there is so much water, would it surprise anybody that this takes a while, say about 400 years? Like the amount of time between now and the little ice age 400 years ago? <br /><br />Two more things:<br /> Notice the long list of things supposedly "caused" by global warming, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html True or not, reasonable or not, notice how quickly the "scientists" LEAP to the conclusion that each of these effects-- either predicted or observed-- not only proves that the Earth is (or will be) getting warmer, but that human CO2 causes it! There is no proof ever offered for this leap of causality, which Al Gore's data has already disproven (see previous)!<br /><br />The second thing that ought to bother you is the way the word "skeptic" has been redefined, to be backwards from the original. Normally, someone proposing a radical new scientific theory, such as that human CO2 will destroy the planet, would have the burden of elaborate and reliable proof for that radical proposition, before it would be accepted. Those proposing, in addition, that we make a massive and humanity-denying shift to the global economy because of this entirely unproven proposition would normally be laughed off the world stage, if not executed for apostasy. Yet the threats we hear are against those defending what is the existing accepted scientific truth, from those insisting the truth is otherwise. How odd. How inappropriate. How wrong.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-10011312851282501562014-03-28T07:32:09.671-05:002014-03-28T07:32:09.671-05:00And of course no one has the factual answer becaus...And of course no one has the factual answer because we have never been here before.<br /><br />Can this be true. It seems to me lots of people have lots of factual answers, it's just many people find many of those answers unpersuasive, often because they conflict with their world view.<br /><br />So the next time a teenager asks us, should I take up smoking? Should our answer be yes because no one can prove how smoking causes cancer?<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-983340167437569792014-03-28T05:52:50.800-05:002014-03-28T05:52:50.800-05:00Yes. For that society and time it does make it the...Yes. For that society and time it does make it the truth.<br /><br />An answer that sounds in relativism, but no that would not be true. It would just be what people believed to be true. Just as there was never a society for which the sun revolved around the Earth just because there was a consensus in that society that happened to believe that.<br /><br />"it would not be factual that women were inferior to men without some form of repeatable measures."<br /><br />Whether we measure things or not doesn't make things factual or not. A cold day is a cold day whether or not we own a thermometer.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-43131549741864074732014-03-27T22:39:20.247-05:002014-03-27T22:39:20.247-05:00We are back at it again...
MinnPost No PauseWe are back at it again...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2014/03/no-pause-much-disruption-worlds-warming-un-report-finds" rel="nofollow">MinnPost No Pause</a>Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-18902347157958940032014-03-27T17:06:50.226-05:002014-03-27T17:06:50.226-05:00"this mythological horror"
Now that is ..."this mythological horror"<br /><br />Now that is your personal truth.<br /><br />How would you prove scientifically and repeatedly that CAGW is not a fact? Your "opposite Gore" argument did nothing for me.<br /><br />How many years and what kind of data is required?<br /><br />As far as I know at this time, there are 2 unproven theories being studied.<br /><br />Human caused CAGW exists.<br />Human caused CAGW does not exist.<br /><br />And of course no one has the factual answer because we have never been here before. (ie burning so many fossil fuels...) And there are so many factors at play that anyone who says they can predict the future is likely smoking pot...Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-68200330389706673702014-03-27T16:58:02.407-05:002014-03-27T16:58:02.407-05:00"If there is a consensus, a widespread belief..."If there is a consensus, a widespread belief, in a society that women should be placed in an inferior position, as there is in some societies today, and at many points in human history, does that make it true?"<br /><br />Yes. For that society and time it does make it the truth.<br /><br />However, it would not be factual that women were inferior to men without some form of repeatable measures.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-63218443289749183142014-03-27T12:29:57.044-05:002014-03-27T12:29:57.044-05:00"I've long said that in weighing the &quo..."I've long said that in weighing the "facts" (to the degree it is know-able, the Truth) that human emotions, feelings, prejudices and opinions must be considered "facts," albeit potentially changeable.}<br /><br />That one might have an an opinion is certainly a fact, but the mere having of an opinion doesn't make the opinion either true or false.<br /><br />"Meanwhile, the skeptics tell people to look out the window at the snow, and a majority are now persuaded that, at least, CAGW is not a big concern."<br /><br />Again, I am no expert on global science. It's an immensely complicated field of knowledge which I haven't begun to study. But I am pretty confident in saying that the undisputed fact that summer in Australia this year doesn't even begin the process of proving or disproving global warming. I find it startling that there are those who believe that a cold winter, is compelling evidence against global warming, or in support of global cooling, I guess.<br /><br />I have been watching the Neil DeGrass Tyson Cosmos series with great interest. you can catch up with past episodes on HuluPlus. I feel pretty certain there was a time in human history when people were told that the sun revolved around the Earth and if you don't believe me just look out the window. <br /><br />--Hiram Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-72895529516347187902014-03-27T07:55:53.311-05:002014-03-27T07:55:53.311-05:00Now we are making progress. I've long said th...Now we are making progress. I've long said that in weighing the "facts" (to the degree it is know-able, the Truth) that human emotions, feelings, prejudices and opinions must be considered "facts," albeit potentially changeable. And that is the battleground on this subject. The CAGW side is still showing pictures of lonely polar bears to children, using emotion to bypass the entire scientific/factual argument. Meanwhile, the skeptics tell people to look out the window at the snow, and a majority are now persuaded that, at least, CAGW is not a big concern. <br /><br />Our only problem here is that our government continues to spend billions of dollars every year propagandizing for and trying to "stop" this mythological horror. How one longs for the days when the US Senate rejected the Kyoto treaty 95-0. And how CAGW seemingly stopped at that point.jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-29248256462241109182014-03-27T07:00:42.061-05:002014-03-27T07:00:42.061-05:00If there is a consensus, a widespread belief, in a...If there is a consensus, a widespread belief, in a society that women should be placed in an inferior position, as there is in some societies today, and at many points in human history, does that make it true? <br /><br />In Aztec society, people believed that human sacrifice was necessary for well being. Because they believed that, was human sacrifice the right thing to do.<br /><br />You can do the tautological thing. If people believe something, it is true that they believe it. But tautologies take us only so far. It's never the case that believing something makes it true. It can do other things however. It can, for example, make things more effective. I would feel comfortable in arguing that a society that believes in democracy is more likely to have a democracy that works well, than one that does not. But that is a different thing from saying that democracy is true.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-80519923042944597142014-03-26T19:07:30.912-05:002014-03-26T19:07:30.912-05:00Just curious...
How many people need to believe s...Just curious...<br /><br />How many people need to believe something is the TRUTH within a society before it is a core TRUTH/VALUE within a society?<br /><br />Examples:<br />Democracy is the best way to govern a country.<br /><br />Women and Men should be treated equally.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-80624109216993745972014-03-26T17:24:18.193-05:002014-03-26T17:24:18.193-05:00You said that credibility was a property of the ob...You said that credibility was a property of the observer, not the speaker, and not the data. We're chasing around semantics when a serious problem needs addressing. <br /><br />We're getting wrapped around the axle trying to discern the Ultimate Truth of All Things, and it ain't gonna happen. All I propose is that we each form an opinion on what is true about a specific matter of public policy (or scientific inquiry) using the information available to us. In this case, I contend that the "theory" of CAGW is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, and that public policy must never be set based on this "theory."jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-21641490287951842532014-03-26T16:24:49.082-05:002014-03-26T16:24:49.082-05:00Philosophy F vs T
Difference Between F and T<a href="http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8053/what-is-the-difference-between-fact-and-truth" rel="nofollow">Philosophy F vs T</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-fact-and-truth/" rel="nofollow">Difference Between F and T</a>Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-70333788585542238102014-03-26T16:18:46.924-05:002014-03-26T16:18:46.924-05:00It is True that a Human Life begins at Conception....It is True that a Human Life begins at Conception...<br /><br />It is True that Rich non-benevolant Conservatives will go to Hell...<br /><br />Please prove the truths incorrect.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-53910118252680578692014-03-26T15:28:04.107-05:002014-03-26T15:28:04.107-05:00Truth is related to beliefs and can therefore vary...Truth is related to beliefs and can therefore vary.<br /><br />Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Belief is linked to credibility, not truth.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-38181953629468442262014-03-26T10:54:12.934-05:002014-03-26T10:54:12.934-05:00Therefore "Truth" can vary based on one&...Therefore "Truth" can vary based on one's faith.<br /><br />Facts however need to be able to be proven, corraborated, etc.<br /><br />Often we confuse the 2 around here.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-50022809574081039702014-03-26T10:50:54.079-05:002014-03-26T10:50:54.079-05:00"Truth is not dependent on, not even related ..."Truth is not dependent on, not even related to, the subjectivity of the observer. Never. Ever."<br /><br />I think you are incorrect here.<br /><br />Truth is related to beliefs and can therefore vary.<br /><br />Facts are the same for everyone.<br />Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14991027705809503541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-25429541889280131742014-03-26T10:18:47.875-05:002014-03-26T10:18:47.875-05:00I accept only the data that can be corroborated fr...I accept only the data that can be corroborated from multiple sources, or from common sense, knowledge and experience.<br /><br />Lots of thing are true, that aren't corroborated, aren't multiply sourced, or sourced at all, and certainly the world is full of things that are true despite the fact that they violate common sense, aren't known or commonly known or are not the subject of experience.<br /><br />Truth is not dependent on, not even related to, the subjectivity of the observer. Never. Ever.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-72850457975615572152014-03-26T10:13:57.146-05:002014-03-26T10:13:57.146-05:00You need to accept all data, not just the data Al ...You need to accept all data, not just the data Al Gore chooses for you."<br /><br />No, I don't.<br /><br />And that, in a nutshell, is the difference.<br /><br />==HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-44246298996952714272014-03-26T08:59:12.238-05:002014-03-26T08:59:12.238-05:00"You need to accept all data, not just the da..."You need to accept all data, not just the data Al Gore chooses for you."<br /><br />No, I don't. I accept only the data that can be corroborated from multiple sources, or from common sense, knowledge and experience. If someone with a known bias provides data which harms their own case, however, I take that as an "admission against interest" and assign it a higher likelihood of being truthful, just like in a court of law. In this case, Mr. Gore's ice-core data meets all three legs of the test for data reliability. I do NOT accept the data coming from climate models, however, because those fuzzy predictions are far off from the actual temperature data. <br /><br />Saying I must accept all data is telling me I can never make a decision because all data are equally valid, even though they may be contradictory. If I'm not allowed to make a judgment about the value or truthfulness individual data inputs, I don't have the judgment to reach a conclusion from the data. jerrye92002https://www.blogger.com/profile/01858692298982859775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8193628934721963907.post-62766875570498058362014-03-26T08:40:59.264-05:002014-03-26T08:40:59.264-05:00"I am accepting only the data that Mr. Gore p..."I am accepting only the data that Mr. Gore presents, which PROVES that he is not to be taken seriously or as an authority. And then I am enjoying the irony of having the "poster boy" for CAGW being the one disproving it."<br /><br />You need to accept all data, not just the data Al Gore chooses for you.<br /><br />--HiramAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com