How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?

[hutch]

I didn't say that you threated my family - you obviously to not understand how to interpret conjunctions, or Boolean choices.

I said that I take seriously any threat to myself or my family. Understand?

And really, who's the bully here? Me, because I point out when people use poor logic, ideology, conspiracy, and pseudoscience, or you who wants to dust me up behind the tents?

Now, back to the science that you are so averse to...

 

you who wants to dust me up behind the tents?

Thats what we used to do with bullies when I was younger...worked well for me in the past....funny how I have never really been bullied by anyone in my life before, always settled it and now it comes from someone who hides behind a computer for safety and goes into berserko paranoid mode when someone wishes to discuss it in person..

Bullying including intellectual intimidation and insults is wrong....UNDERSTAND?

[lickapop]

awwww your cute hutch....X

[WoodDragon]

I'll say one thing for you Hutch...

Whether intened or otherwise, you have an exquisite capacity for irony.

In inverse proportion to your capacity to understand science.

[Blood Trance Fusion]

Careful: keep your facts coming and he'll beat you up!

Truth and fact are for people without faith...

[Torsten]

hutch, if you can't handle intellectual scientific discussions then you shouldn't get involved in them. If you feel you're not able to stand your ground then this could be because of bullying or because you're wrong. While I certainly don't like woody's tone towards you, it seems you're mostly just frustrated because you're not understanding the evidence he produces.

But what bothers me most is that you are using racist stereotypes and threats of violence to try and make your point. that is unacceptable. I am giving you a warnpoint for those and trust that we will never see those from you again as you are now on two points and the next one is terminal.

It would be sad to lose you. While I don't agree with your POV, I am always happy for lively discussion and you provide plenty of that. You just need to realise there are limits. I am sorry this thread got so out of control without intervention, but it appears our mod for that forum is AWOL.

Please edit the offending parts.

[hutch]

hutch, if you can't handle intellectual scientific discussions then you shouldn't get involved in them. If you feel you're not able to stand your ground then this could be because of bullying or because you're wrong. While I certainly don't like woody's tone towards you, it seems you're mostly just frustrated because you're not understanding the evidence he produces.

But what bothers me most is that you are using racist stereotypes and threats of violence to try and make your point. that is unacceptable. I am giving you a warnpoint for those and trust that we will never see those from you again as you are now on two points and the next one is terminal.

It would be sad to lose you. While I don't agree with your POV, I am always happy for lively discussion and you provide plenty of that. You just need to realise there are limits. I am sorry this thread got so out of control without intervention, but it appears our mod for that forum is AWOL.

Please edit the offending parts.

 

It's such a shame Torston...I really did love this place but have decide that I will walk away...I will keep my interest in this subject and I thank you and the marvelous people I have met here for that...sure I didn't handle things the way I would have liked with this clown but I only ever responded to what was non intellectual scientific discussion...Like IDIOT....follow this link and when you do it is an insult...I don't want to waste yours or my time rehashing it all and showing it for what it is.... I said twice now and I think it is worth saying again...."be smart...not a smart arse"....He pushes my buttons and he knows it......For a second there I thought about going out with another warning but no....wont bother...sad enough moment for me as it is....I'll finish it here now cause I reckon this bloke will give me a heart attack and I have enough on my plate as it is.....

So... one last time Woody......thanks for being the type of person who brought out the worst in me......I hope you enjoy your kiddie fan club and I am sure down the track your science will come back and bite you in the arse...wish I could be here to see it..but....in the words of another infamous Australian.....

Such is life

[hutch]

How do I unsubscribe or delete my account or whatever....

[lickapop]

for what its worth man I did enjoy your take.

[WoodDragon]

Hutch.

I would have show far more respect for you if you had actually addressed the material with which you disagreed. You might think that I am being just rude, but think about it from my point of view - I happen to have a scientific understanding of the underlying material, and I have seen the denialist arguments repeated time and again. If they are aired without any actual comparison of point and counterpoint, without any testing of the veracity of the claims and acknowledgement of mistakes, then it becomes just more garbage after old garbage.

Do that long enough and you'll fray the patience of most people who do understand the material, and you'll simply make them believe nothing other than the sort of conclusions that I come to.

And that's fine too, if that's how you want to play it, but don't then turn around and say that the science was wrong. Admit that you aren't interested in having a scientific discussion about it, and it'll make it easier for all.

As to my links, wherever I was countering on a scientific point, there was relevant material presented. If there were snarky comments there as well that wasn't what I was directing people toward. Where I was illustrating the partisan nature or the demonstrated nonsense of a denialist or of their arguments, I was again referring to the accounting of the material, and not to any subsequent community commentary. Sometimes though there were pertinent comments worth reading, and in those specific cases I would have said so.

It puzzles me that you seem to interpret material in a way that is very different from the content inherent within it. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining why you seem to take home a different message compare to what is being said by the messenger. I'm sure that you will disagree, but perhaps the best thing to do is simply to wait for time to tell who was correct - science, or those who believe that they have a better way to analyse the world of complex data than do scientists.

Having said all this, I do not think that leaving the Corroborree is any answer and it disappoints me to see you go. Personally, as much as I disagree with your opinion about the 'greenhouse' effect or about ecological sustainability, I'd rather that you stayed here and benefited from the many other resources here, and where you disagree with me (or anyone else), that you try to get to the nub of the reasons for the disagreement.

I'm interested in the truth as best as rational analysis can determine it. If you have a valid point you should do your best to convince me, or to allow me to convince you. If we can engage on that basis then no-one needs to call another names, or use belligerent language.

So yeah, don't leave the forum entirely. There are better ways to get past this than that.

Edited February 14, 2011 by WoodDragon

[synchromesh]

And that's fine too, if that's how you want to play it, but don't then turn around and say that the science was wrong. Admit that you aren't interested in having a scientific discussion about it, and it'll make it easier for all.

This coming from the person who quit the debate?

It puzzles me that you seem to interpret material in a way that is very different from the content inherent within it. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining why you seem to take home a different message compare to what is being said by the messenger. I'm sure that you will disagree, but perhaps the best thing to do is simply to wait for time to tell who was correct - science, or those who believe that they have a better way to analyse the world of complex data than do scientists.

I can't believe it... you've actually made the claim that every scientist believes in Global Warming!

[WoodDragon]

This coming from the person who quit the debate?

Synchro, all I did was stop reading that particular thread. I didn't delete my SAB account.

It was simple to do, and there were no dramas.

I can't believe it... you've actually made the claim that every scientist believes in Global Warming!

Firstly, I didn't say "every scientist". Secondly, the very large majority of scientists do accept the conventional interpretation of the data, and there are formal surveys that back this up. And it's very different to "believ[ing] in global warming", which has connotations of acceptance based on faith, rather than on critical analysis.

I work in science. I've spent decades in biology labs and in chemistry labs (and two years in physics and geology labs, but I block that out), and I have dinner with and live near an atmospheric physicist and a glaciologist. My social circle is mostly geeks, nerds, and sundry propeller-heads.

In my personal experience of the several hundred scientists that I know, I've not met one who disagrees with the physics of global warming. Not one.

More generally, few of the scientists I have spoken with themselves know of any scientists who disagree with the climatology. This is not to say that there isn't a small body of such scientists - there is - but then, there are mavericks and crazies in science just as there are in any field of endeavour, and curiously, there is a high correlation between those scientists who dispute climate science and those who show extreme views in other areas.

If you don't believe me, there's a very simple way to test this. Go to your local university and knock on the doors of the scientisits in every chemistry, biology, physics and geology department, and ask them if they accept the IPCC view of climate physics. I can guarantee that you will find that the overwhelming majority of professionals in the first three disciplines will say "yes", and that there will be a smaller proportion (but still a majority) of geologists who also say "yes". It won't cost you more than a few hours of your time and a couple of bucks for a parking permit, and you'll get to rub shoulders with real, actual scientists. And you won't need to take my word for it.

Seriously... it's simple to do, and you would get your answer. Take a pen and paper with you when you do it, and record the names of the scientists whom you speak with - it would be a very interesting exercise indeed.

If someone could actually rationally refute, with verifiable data and a coherent and mathematically valid explanation, the physics of the last two centuries - the physics that underpins our cars and our 'phones and our microwave ovens and our televisions and our computers and our aeroplanes and our rockets and our CAT scanners and so many other things that people accept without question - then yes, most of these scientists would happily accept an alternative. Personally I can think of nothing that would make me happier, because then I could stop being concerned about the climate and focus more on the other things that humans are doing to FUBAR the environment.

But until and unless that day comes, most scientists accept the parsimonious explanation - the planet is warming.

Edited February 14, 2011 by WoodDragon

[synchromesh]

Synchro, all I did was stop reading that particular thread. I didn't delete my SAB account.

It was simple to do, and there were no dramas.

 

Curious that it happened around the time hutch's sources were getting better...

[Guest svarg26]

the scientists that woody puts all of his faith in were screaming about never ending severe droughts and then it rained and rained and rained. then suddenly these very same scientists said global warming would cause more rain. oh dear. how the mantra changes with the wind.

the policy of water restrictions. the policy of building desalination plants. the policy of charging more for water.

what was the need for these policies if water was never going to be an issue, since as the scientists are NOW saying that global warming causes more rain.

the question needs to be asked. what doesn't global warming cause?

Edited February 15, 2011 by svarg26

[Blood Trance Fusion]

the question needs to be asked. what doesn't global warming cause?

 

Civil discussion nor friendly debate.

[Guest svarg26]

too right.

[WoodDragon]

Synchro:

Curious that it happened around the time hutch's sources were getting better...

Actually, it's completely the opposite - I stopped reading that thread because hutch's posts and links were growing steadily less scientific.

However, if hutch posted a link that has any scientific credibility and that refutes the physics of greenhouse warming, I'd be interested in seeing them pointed out so that I can assess them for myself.

Svarg26:

the scientists that woody puts all of his faith in were screaming about never ending severe droughts and then it rained and rained and rained. then suddenly these very same scientists said global warming would cause more rain. oh dear. how the mantra changes with the wind.

The model projection is for more frequent severe droughts during El Niño events, and for more severe storms/floods during La Niña events. What happened in Queensland last month, and in the years leading up to it, is entirely consistent with the beginning of the projections - if you were familiar with the science, you'd understand that the "mantra" has in fact not changed, and indeed that it is being borne out by the manner in which climate has followed the modelling.

If you can demonstrate that the scientists have it wrong, I'd love to see the evidence.

[synchromesh]

Actually, it's completely the opposite - I stopped reading that thread because hutch's posts and links were growing steadily less scientific.

So the post below isn't worth acknowledging then?

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=26444&view=findpost&p=290231

[lickapop]

I think time is going to solve this one.

2050AD I will be 74 and I am going to come back to this thread and say you you and you " had NO IDEA"

and you and you "were spot on"

Edited February 15, 2011 by lickapop

[WoodDragon]

Svarg26.

I have elsewhere pointed out that the so-called "Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" is a bunch of whackos who have been soundly refuted. I don't know which link I used at the time, but the RealClimate thread on the matter is a start.

If you can’t be shagged actually reading about the science, let me summarise it for you.

To date in the warming process, there has been insufficient time (= data) to definitively identify any increase in the number and severity of storms, floods or droughts. There has however been strong preliminary indications that these are occurring, and the next decade or so will likely give strong confirmation. Don't forget that this is a process that has taken 250 years to start, and it will take thousands of years to rebalance. The real-world manifestations are only just (= in the last few decades, which is a short period of time in climate terms) becoming visible on the radar.

On sea levels, the signatories are plain wrong. Sea levels are rising: and it's occurring as a result of simple physics. Pretending otherwise is nonsense. And as for the "inundation" of low-lying land, it doesn't happen overnight, but it will happen. If you doubt this just ask any coastal council in Australia what they think about the issue, and what data they are using, and what their forecasts are. The numbers are simple - and by the end of the century there will be many coastal areas with significant inundation issues. If you think that sea levels are not rising, link to specific data rather than to claims in lobbyist documents that just say so. Then we can actually get to and test it.

Human mortality rates are not expected to show a global warming signature for another decade or so yet, so this "refutation" is another strawman. Plant and animal extinctions however are already in train – there are many temperature-sensitive species, including alpine species and reef species, which are decreasing markedly in numbers and distribution, and this through climatic events that are entirely consistent with warming of the planet. Reptiles such as sea turtles that have temperature-dependent sex selection are showing signs of distorted gender ratios, which places heavy pressure on their abilities to recruit new generations. With these taxa and with others, however, it takes decades for the full effects of warming to manifest.

Again, it doesn't happen overnight, but the signatures of extinction debt are already apparent in many species.

In this regard, the claim that "these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels" is an outright misrepresentation. I could fill a whole thread on just this subject alone, but I doubt that it would be accepted in good faith, and I would suggest that in the first instance it's a simple matter for anyone to use Google Scholar (if they don’t have access to Current Contents or to Biological Abstracts) to find some clarification for themselves.

And the stuff that the letter says about ocean acidification and carbonate-utilising species' shell/skeleton erosion is just plain wrong. There are big problems in this regard, and they are well documented in the scientific literature - do I need to find this for you too?

Finally, the names of the signatories to this nonsense are in themselves sufficient to alert any clued-in reader to the bogosity of the letter.

Don Easterbrook has a bad habit of making rubbish up.

Lee Gerhard is a petroleum geologist who works for the completely dodgy SPPI.

Craig Idso is another notorious oil lobbyist.

Richard Lindzen – guess what? Oil, again. And his attempts at climate science have been shown to be wobbly at best, and mostly just garbage.

Patrick Michaels is a lobbyist for the extreme right-wing Cato Institute, and for coal interests. His claims "refuting" global warming have been mercilessly deconstructed over the years.

S. Fred Singer is a retired physicist who became anotorious contrarian if the bucks were there – he made more than a few bob working for tobacco companies telling the world that cigarettes did not cause cancer.

Roy Spencer is a Christian who thinks that evolution isn't the cause for life on Earth, that we all came from the Garden of Eden. Oh, and he was the guy who said that there was no global warming, and used his satellite measurements to prove it – until someone tapped him on the shoulder and pointed out that there was a problem with his data, and that when it was corrected that the satellites showed the same warming that other scientists had been explaining about for years. Bugger, that.

It's the same again and again for the other names. Seriously, if you are going to rely on the claims of people like this lot, you need to spend a few hours, or even days, looking up the background to the people to which you are referring. Scratch the surface and you'll find a conger-line of snake-oil salesmen, cranks, lobbyists, and sundry unreliables, and that the stuff that they promote is no more trustworthy than something you'd read in the National Enquirer.

I'm sorry, but this link is not evidence of hutch using "better" sources. Quite to the contrary – it's more of the same guff as preceded it.

I doubt that this information will change your mind though. You'll likely just move on to the next "better" argument that provides a confirmation bias, and blithely wave it around rather than actually spending the few hours it would take to assess any of this guff for yourself.

And if I'm being a "bully" about this, then do the analysis that is required to show why I am wrong. Bully me back with scutinisable statistics and data. Get to the actual point of something for a change. Demonstrate with a critical analysis (or at least an annotated bibliography) why the denialists signing that letter, or writing any other pseudoscientific document, are correct.

It's only the science that I'm interested in - why is it so hard to pin the denialists on this matter?

[synchromesh]

I think time is going to solve this one.

2050AD I will be 74 and I am going to come back to this thread and say you you and you " had NO IDEA"

and you and you "were spot on"

 

But how do you know that you'll be alive by then?

Does global warming kill 150,000 people a year?

[Guest svarg26]

the queensland flood wasn't caused by global warming. it was caused because people built on a flood plain.

so severe drought will be followed by floods. isn't that just the normal weather pattern? ie summer followed by winter. i am convinced. sign me up for the carbon tax and can someone please start thinking about the children.

to say that floods have always been part of the global warming mantra is a LIE.

too bad for woody.

Edited February 16, 2011 by svarg26

[WoodDragon]

the queensland flood wasn't caused by global warming.

Strawman.

No scientist says that it was. What they are saying is that flooding was enhanced, to the degree that warming caused extra evaporation off the Pacific Ocean.

it was caused because people built on a flood plain.

No, that's false attribution.

"It" was caused by moisture precipitating after being evaporated off oceans. And the moisture was increased to the extent that the oceans were warmed greater than usual by the 'greenhouse' effect.

It's effects were noticed because people chose to build on a flood plain.

so severe drought will be followed by floods.

Not always. The droughts of the late 1990s/early 2000s were characterised by not having enough rain to properly break them before the droughts kicked back in.

isn't that just the normal weather pattern? ie summer followed by winter.

Strawman.

The cycle of summer and winter has little to do with multi-year droughts and floods. The cycle only has relevance where there is a seasonal rainfall effect.

If it were "summer followed by winter" we'd have multi-year droughts and devastating floods every year.

That's obviously not the case.

to say that floods have always been part of the global warming mantra is a LIE.

Um, no it's not. Check out FAR, SAR, TAR, and AR4 from the IPCC. Floods and droughts are specifically mentioned and projected in each one.

too bad for woody.

Why?

I'm not the one who crams more wrongness into each post than a squirrel crams nuts into its cheeks.

Edited February 16, 2011 by WoodDragon

[WoodDragon]

Oh, and Svarg26, to get back to the topic of this thread, there are many agencies currently predicting food shortages and riots in the near future, caused in part by the droughts and floods of the last several years.

By your argument, these should not be happening, to the extent that political interference is excluded from the food distribution chain.

[synchromesh]

[Guest svarg26]

"In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water"."

"In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

poor woody. more excuses please.