Wednesday, December 23, 2009

LIBERTARIANZ SUS: Let's make Christmas more commercial!

Susan Ryder takes her Christmas seriously!
I love Christmas. I love everything about it, from shopping to decorating to singing carols. It’s my favourite time of the year, as it is for millions around the world.
There’s something about putting your tree up. I put mine up earlier than anybody I know, with the exception of my sister who occasionally pips me to the post. I usually aim for the last Sunday in November, complete with my favourite festive music. My youngest sister, a mother of three, somewhat violently swears the two of us to secrecy, lest my nephews and niece pester her to get their tree up ridiculously early, too.
The music is important, because it simply wouldn’t be Christmas for us without it. The first is from Bing Crosby & the Andrews Sisters, originally recorded in the 1940s. My late grandfather was a huge Crosby fan and he and Nana had the record. We played it every Christmas until it quite literally warped – and even then we still played it. Several years ago we discovered it on CD, thereby preserving the tradition for the next generation, who I’m delighted to report know all the words of Mele Kalikimaka.
The second is a relative newcomer, “Aaron Neville’s Soulful Christmas”, introduced by one of my brothers-in-law, a musician. Aaron might look like a criminal – and he does - but he has the
voice of an angel. I defy the hardest heart to not be moved by his rendition of “O Holy Night” in particular. Occasionally we will permit an interloper on Christmas Day itself, but generally it’s just Aaron and Bing.

Perfect.
Anyway, back to the tree where my decorations are like old friends who visit once a year. Some were picked up in my travels in the days when the offerings in New Zealand were severely
limited, but now, thanks to globalisation, we are spoilt for choice.
No matter the size of the tree, though, or the quality and quantity of the decorations, they come alive with Christmas lights. The lights provide the magic.
Retailers love the Christmas season and for good reason. For many, it’s the busiest time of the year with December sales representing a healthy portion of their turnover. The big annual
spend-up on Christmas gifts is an example of the market at work. Stores are stocked to the brim with goods to sell, employing thousands of staff in the process. Students are gainfully employed
as much-needed additional staff to help offset the costs of their next educational year, or to just get through the summer.
Manufacturers work hard to complete orders on time and freight companies are flat out with seasonal deliveries. The livelihoods of many depend upon the Christmas season, and yet every year we hear the same cries that Christmas has become commercialised, as if it is a bad thing.
But why is that so?
To answer that question, it is worthwhile to explore its origins. Here’s a quick look. Christmas is a Christian holiday and like other Christian holidays, it has its origin in paganism.
Saturnalia was a Roman festival in honour of Saturn, the god of agriculture. It began on 15 December and lasted for seven days of feasting and revelry, just prior to the winter solstice that
fell around 25 December on the Julian calendar. The solstice included glorification of Mithra, the god of light who several centuries later became known as the god of the sun. The Roman
Catholic Church had the habit of absorbing pagan traditions into Christendom, converting the holiday commemorating the birth of the sun god into a “Christ Mass.”
However, Christmas-time celebrations prior to the 1800s still featured much pagan revelry among the British commoners, at times little more than wild carousals. It is believed that this
drunken revelry had much to do with Oliver Cromwell – never much of a partygoer – going so far as to outlaw Christmas in the 17th century, forcing it underground for a time. This ban was
extended to many of the early North American colonies where “violators” were fined five shillings. After its reinstatement, Christmas still bore much of its earlier debauchery, but some of
our current traditions started to appear. For example, caroling began with groups of individuals visiting houses in the community singing songs in exchange for eggnog. Gift-giving, however, was still extremely limited, and virtually unknown within families.
The traditions of several countries are involved. The Yule log came from Scandinavian mythology, “Yule” being the Anglo- Saxon term for the months of December and January. After
most Scandinavians had converted to Christianity, “Yule” became synonymous with Christmas.
By the 17th century, the Germans had converted the Christmas tree, originally a sign of fertility, into a Christian symbol of rebirth. The Dutch called Saint Nicholas, an altruistic bishop from the
4th century, ‘Sinterklaas’, who was to become ‘Santa Claus’ in the USA. In 1823 the American professor Clement Clarke Moore wrote the delightful poem entitled A Visit from Saint Nicholas,
better known as ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas.'
But perhaps the greatest change occurred after the publication in 1843 of A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, providing lessons on charity and the importance of caring for family and
friends. As a result, Christmas became a joyful, domestic holiday focusing on children in particular. It was an illustrator with “Harper’s” magazine, who first depicted Santa’s Workshop at the North Pole in the latter half of the 19th century, while Coca-Cola ran commercials in 1931 showing Santa as the children’s gift-giver, as we know him today. Rudolf, the much-loved ninth reindeer appeared in 1939 via an advertising agent on behalf of his retailing client, all of which paved the way for the commercialism seen annually for decades.
The festive colour and sparkle brightened the dark days of the long northern winters, with the seasonal sales providing welcome respite during the slower trading months.
But what of Christmas down under, occurring as it does in early summer. Is it not odd to see traditional winter celebrations imposed by early settlers upon warm, sunny days? Christmas
cards depicting robins on snow-covered mailboxes? Rugged-up Carolers sipping hot toddies?
Not at all … if that’s what you like. Whether you prefer a traditional roast meal or a barbecue outside, a formal dinner or informal brunch, a church service to celebrate the birth of Christ
or a walk along the beach, a large, rowdy family affair or a quiet day indulging your favourite pastimes, is entirely up to you.
And rather than decrying its commercialism, I prefer to embrace it for the wealth it provides and the jobs it creates. It would be a mean-spirited Scrooge who begrudged another his income during the Season of Goodwill. Do some people overstretch themselves financially? Sadly, yes. But the truth is that nobody forces them to do so. Beautiful doesn’t have to be big and bold. It never did. Yes, the Santa sleepwear is tacky. Yes, the reindeer antlers are tragic on anyone old enough to pay full price at the pictures, and ‘Snoopy’s Christmas’ drives me nuts, too—whoever’s singing the damn thing. But it all vanishes in comparison with the beauty of a Christmas tree lit up in the darkness, and the enrapturing melodies of some of the most beautiful music ever written.
May Father Christmas be good to you all.

Labels:

89 Comments:

Blogger Lucia Maria said...

Merry Christmas to you, Sus!

Silent Night is one of my favourite carols. :)

12/23/2009 05:41:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

My favorite is :

Oh Come All Ye Faithful (Mormon Tabernacle Choir)

Merry Christmas to all. Yeeha, it's beer time.

12/23/2009 05:53:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Your post seems like an overkill really.

I think you are responding to a few nutjobs.

Most people couldn't care less. They get on and do their best.

It's as if you are yelling at a mountain.

12/23/2009 06:15:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Barry, how about you piss off and just leave the adults to enjoy Christmas without your nutjobbery.

12/23/2009 06:29:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

It's just that it brings you down when you rail against an imaginary adversary over the commercialisation of Christmas.

It makes one reevaluate the veracity with which you approach other debates.

I mean, is your strong voice on issues because of the issue and your belief about it or just because you have some spare time, an angry demeanour and a keyboard?

When SUS argues with no-one about Christmas then why would one bother to listen to anything else she "rails against"? It's just as likely to be another instance of "I have nothing to shout about...how about this!"

Maybe that explains the venom against Climate Change action....

...just got nothing to do have we?

12/23/2009 06:54:00 pm  
Blogger Greig McGill said...

Nice, Sus. I'm with you on everything except carols. Worst things ever. Half of them celebrate pointless mysticism. The other half are just repetitive dross. All of them are hackneyed, cliched bollocks. But besides that, bring it ON! I love xmas.

Barry: In the spirit of the season, I won't say what I was thinking. I will say I hope you have a great christmas, and you wake up in the new year renouncing your hatred of humanity and embracing progress, reality, and a love of life.

Cheers all.

12/23/2009 07:43:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Here is another favourite of mine from youtube:

Angels From The Realms Of Glory (Sissel with an orchestra)

12/23/2009 09:02:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

'When SUS argues with no-one about Christmas then why would one bother to listen to anything else she "rails against"? It's just as likely to be another instance of "I have nothing to shout about...how about this!"'

Barry, anyone who hasn't heard the constant cries from both left and right about the "commercialism" and "materialism" of Christmas (or all of Western society for that matter) has had their head under a rock.

The Christmas traditions of gift-giving, decoration, and getting together with friends and family - in essence, enjoying your life and the lives of those around you - is anathema to those who believe man must exist for God or the state, and can only derive value from an entity much greater than the worthless individual.

"Maybe that explains the venom against Climate Change action...."

The "vemon against Climate Change action" may have something to do with the fact that politicians have no right to dispose of unearned money as they see fit, regardless of the snobbery of intellectual elites.

12/23/2009 09:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

TV One news tonight: "Rampant comsumerism blah blah blah", "Have we lost the true spirit of Christmas blah blah blah".

12/24/2009 06:01:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

I think you will find that those selected people who speak on those issues are hard core from religions or somewhere.

Since you guys are all atheist you have no idea.

People of religion rarely have the fundamental nature of those who are the leaders. Those leaders are trying to instill values.

They are not so much concerned with the consumerism as with the loss of the values they promote.

If people were very strong in their religion or something...you would hear little about consumerism.

In effect you are misunderstanding what they are saying. They are not attacking consumerism but rather saying that it is replacing something else. They are more concerned about what it is replacing.

But I guess that is lost on you. You are so one dimensional in the way you understand issues. Most of you (Fisi, PC, TWR, LGM, Act Youth...)

It is that one dimensionalness that ultimately makes you look like an idiot to normal people.

Most people hear that message and say "Oh I must think moer about the religion or care for my family more ..." but all you hear is "DOwn with consumerism".

Your mishearing and misunderstand is based on your own deficiencies in intelligence.

12/24/2009 07:50:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

"It is that one dimensionalness that ultimately makes you look like an idiot to normal people."

1) "Dimensionaless" isn't a word. It doesn't look good in an argument to make up words.

2) These "normal people" being? Throwing out baseless facts doesn't make me look like the idiot.

"Your mishearing and misunderstand is based on your own deficiencies in intelligence."

Barry, come back here when you can form a rational argument based on facts, rather than degenerating into slurs within a couple of sentences.

Then, we can talk. Otherwise, I'd be wasting my time.

12/24/2009 08:13:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Callum,

Sorry. Seems you are a welterweight.

Search one-dimensionalness on google. You will find may people use it.

If you cannot understand what it means. You know what to do.

Normal people is everyone who thinks in more than one dimension - i.e. everyone except you.

The fact that you cannot offer anything related to the issue being discussed says so much about your lack of intelligence. So much.

12/25/2009 01:19:00 pm  
Blogger Callum said...

Barry, when you present a rational argument rather than making up words, I might respond to it.

I have no need for someone whose best argument consists of demoting the intelligence of people you know virtually nothing of.

12/25/2009 01:39:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

I know based on arguments put up against climate change and Christmas messages that you have no ability whatsoever to see both sides of an issue in order to actually understand it properly.

If you consider that to be a negative thing then do something about it.

Until then you will keep banging your head on the same wall.

The fact is that you don't understand the reasoning and circumstance behind messages about Christmas consumerism. And it is obvious the same applies to your pathetically weak one-dimensional view of climate change.

12/25/2009 02:06:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
Your mishearing and misunderstand is based on your own deficiencies in intelligence.

Barry, your arguments here at Not PC showed no intelligence at all. Ok, point me out to a post of yours here at Not PC that included/showed intelligent concepts in it? None whatsoever. And here you are, implying that somehow you have intelligence while others have not.

12/25/2009 03:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Fisi you are an example of no intelligence. You are adding nothing to this thread whereas I have at least discussed the issues contained in the OP.

You always provide weak excuses for arguments. I wonder why you waste your time. You spend so long making irrelevant and incorrect points. Sad.

12/25/2009 05:17:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry, anyone who understands non-linear science has got intelligence and shows that his/her neuron activities in his/her brain definitely works, which is what I have shown you here? Any daft person can see that I have argued with science, ie, I've got intelligence? And what have you contributed? Oh, wait, only correlatioin and nothing else, what a joke. Correlation is understood by school drop out and toilet cleaners as ACT Youth had already stated above.

Enough said, man. Go back and educate yourself before coming back here to waste a physicist's (myself) useful time. If this is my blog, I would have deleted your comments because you're not addressing questions that put forward to you nor answer anything at all, all your comments were piss taking and troll.

Until, you've shown some intelligence to debate here, then stop wasting everyone's time here.

12/25/2009 05:24:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Anyone who cannot comprehend that correlation has more than one specific meaning...

Is not intelligent.

And someone who waffles on about formulae which while nice and interesting, are not relevant to the argument, is also less than intelligent.

Your formula are useless if you cannot apply them properly at the right time.

Statistics are a tool to be used by the scientist not the answer in themselves.

You are happy to go on about the inaccuracies of using monte carlo in simulations.

But these simulations are not the crux of climate change.

The correlation between C)2 and temperatures is where the effort needs to go in.

But no skeptic has proven there is no link between C02 and temperatures.

Until someone does there is a risk.

As C02 levels rise, if the link IS there then consequences can occur.

While you waste your time on your pretty models people with brains are trying to sort out the answers to those major questions.

12/25/2009 05:41:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Mr Fisi your questions do not have to be answered if they are not related to the topic.

Your desire to talk about statistics and physics is lovely but it doesn't further anything in relation to climate change.

The people with the brains have been focussing on the Correlation between climate and CO2 levels.

You are wasting your time on the fringes.

That is why no-one is listening to you.

The reason you don't bother with the real issues is because once you start looking at them you will find that the climate scientists at Copenhagen were right and you are wrong.

They do not say that CO2 levels DEFINATLEY or 100% increase temperatures...what they say is that there is a correlation that is hard to ignore. And multiple sources of evidence point to C02 influencing climate.

NO skeptic has PROVEN that there is no relationship between C02 and temperatures.

Until they do, then governments are perfectly right to consider the consequences of further increases in C02 and evaluate the costs and benefits of reducing emissions or waiting for consequences.

Since NOONE knows what the consequences, they have decided on the path of caution.

Even I am not sure about whether climate change will happen.

But I am not willing to condemn people to die like you just because you don't wanna find that you are wrong.

12/25/2009 05:57:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
Anyone who cannot comprehend that correlation has more than one specific meaning...

Is not intelligent.


Yep, that's you. I pointed that out to you about the non-linear side of correlation, which is a completely strange idea to you, since you never knew that there is something called non-linear correlation. That's mean you're no difference from those who are policy advisors for women affairs department as TWR mentioned above. You have to admit that you don't need intelligence if you are to do such job because you really don't need specific training. You could be a physicist, a statistician, an anthropologist, an economist, a sociologist, etc, and you could still do that job. There is no intelligence for anyone doing policy analyst for such daft job as a policy analyst for women affairs department, which you seem to be displaying here in your arguments. I mean, have you argued about science here at all? Nope. You have argued like an uneducated person here.

Barry said...
Your formula are useless if you cannot apply them properly at the right time.

Useless and troll. After I had written essays for you on the other thread to educate you (since your arguments are simplistic high school or primary level) about universality of physics models (ie, it works for all time and for all domain) and here you mention something about apply them properly at the right time. Did you understand or it occurred to you that physics models (true representative of physical reality) don't need proper application at right time, since they're supposed to be working at ALL TIME, which is now, tomorrow, next year and the next 1000 years or so? Did you know that? There is no such thing as right time and inappropriate time. True model of physical reality means it works at ALL TIME. Why do you think that particle physics standard model in fundamental physics work at all time? It predicted the existence of quarks well in advance (almost 30 years from the time of its publications till the time of its first indirect observation in the lab). Was it because of its application in appropriate time? Nope! It was because as ACT Youth said above, the model itself was rigorously (mathematically) tested for self-consistency before the model was being used and that's why it is so powerful. It is so powerful because we apply it at the right time, but because it is a self-consistent theory where its proposition has been validated against physical reality (theoretically).

Do you see how stupid and illiterate of what you've just said here?

Barry said...
And someone who waffles on about formulae which while nice and interesting, are not relevant to the argument, is also less than intelligent.

Look, you stupid illiterate. I don't waffle about formulas. That's what your bible IPCC use? They use formulas (heavy calculus). I simply debate about the use of those formulas, since it is something that I do for a living (ie, writing numerical software codes in complex mathematics) and I know the shortfalls in these models.

I use Monte Carlo in software applications that I have developed, but its success in those software products is not that great. The IPCC uses Monte Carlo a lot, but they're so confident that its prediction is to be treated as GOD. Man, did you read what ACT Youth has pointed out to you above about the use of Monte Carlo in the IPCC report? Obviously not, since you haven't commented on its use, simply because you're too illiterate to understand of what it is. Probably, when you saw the word Monte Carlo, you thought that someone just said to you, motherfucker, since you've never heard it before nor read about it. Actually, the term is a well understood one, but only for the intelligent people (like myself & others) and not you, since you're obviously scientifically illiterate.

12/26/2009 12:41:00 am  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
Your desire to talk about statistics and physics is lovely but it doesn't further anything in relation to climate change.

Stop being a dork and a stupid idiot. The IPCC report is about statistics and physics. Can you show me, where in the IPCC report (ie, chapters) that don't involve statistics & physics? I bet that you will evade, since you don't understand the IPCC report itself. You've been reading blogs and newspaper articles on AGW and formed your opinion from that, but not from reading the IPCC report which is statistics and physics from page 1 to the end. If you don't believe me (since you haven't read it), then I am willing to write you another essay of what the IPCC statistics/physics say?

Barry said...
The people with the brains have been focussing on the Correlation between climate and CO2 levels.

Barry, that's why I do what I do, because I have a brain. I know technology at a deeper level from opto-electronics, economics to software codes. I am super-intelligent and no jokes here. I know economics/finance, electronics, nuclear physics, photonics, engineering, signal processing, quantum mechanics, cosmology, feedback control system design (that's why I grabbed Gavin Schmidt's balls at a debate at RealClimate, the supposedly intelligent one according to you on the topic of climate feedback sensitivity - a control system theory) and more. Gavin Schmidt didn't (and still does today) know anything at all about feedback control theory. Too hard for the poor bugger. I thought that he's intelligent that should know any topic in any subject. It turned out that more intelligent guys like me (all round) can expose illiterate guys such as Gavin whom other illiterates like you look up to.

Barry said...
You are wasting your time on the fringes.

I am not on the fringes. You obviously don't read enough. Do you see that more and more of fundamental physicists (quantum mechanics, general relativity/quantum gravity, string theory, statistical mechanics, etc,...) have come out criticizing the AGW. Mind you that fundamental physics is much more complex than climate science, but that's something that you have no clue about since you don't the difference between those disciplines.

Barry said...
That is why no-one is listening to you.

So, you've done a survey and found out that no one is listening to the sceptics, huh? Are you a psychic that you read people's minds? Did you see the recent (unscientific) polls of the debate between Ian Wishart and Gareth Morgan on TV1 lately? Yep, people didn't listen to Falafulu since they don't know who the fuck is Falafulu or even heard about him, but the people obviously have listened to some sceptic scientists which there are many of them. Your comment is pathetic and irrelevant.

Barry said...
The reason you don't bother with the real issues is because once you start looking at them you will find that the climate scientists at Copenhagen were right and you are wrong.

Barry, as I said above, that I am a real scientist. I can do what Jim Salinger had been doing at NIWA, but Jim cannot be all round like me. Jim is now looking for a job, and can you imagine what sort of job that he can take? Um!! may be Ken Ring will offer him a job, because the reality, climate scientists (including Salinger) are not employable like real fundamental scientists (such as me & millions of others). I can be anything (from economics, electronics to software), because our training in fundamental physics equipped us well to deal with complexity. Jim Salinger and the so called scientists that you worshiped are viewed by those who had been trained in fundamental physics as nothing more than toilet cleaners, ie, stuff is too easy to understand with little effort in learning them.

12/26/2009 12:43:00 am  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
They do not say that CO2 levels DEFINATLEY or 100% increase temperatures...what they say is that there is a correlation that is hard to ignore. And multiple sources of evidence point to C02 influencing climate.

You're fucking repeating yourself over and over as somehow that repeating them many times will make it a valid argument. I have said to you about a million times now that it is not about confirming 100% agreement? Primary students already understand that it is not 100% match. It is about the mathematical methods being used and that's the heart of the debate, which is the over-reliant on mathematics and not on the physical observations. Get this fact, the IPCC opinions are not based on repeatable experiments, but based on data back-testing, ie, testing the modes against past observed data. There was no repeatable experiment being conducted at all, because everything was done by back-testing the models against past data. We do know what does that mean. Economists have been doing that sort of back-testing for decades and their mathematical models didn't even give them a hint about the credit meltdown of the last 2 years, even though their formulas fit perfectly with some data. Climate model back-testing is no difference to economic back-testing.

Barry said...
NO skeptic has PROVEN that there is no relationship between C02 and temperatures.

Barry, the so called proof of AGW, was done via statistics, but statistics is no physics. After you moaned about statistics/physics above, then you moaned here about no proving of relationship between CO2 and temperature, but how do you prove those? Repeatable experiments? Nope? Mathematical formulas (which you railed against above)? Yep definitely.

Barry said...
Until they do, then governments are perfectly right to consider the consequences of further increases in C02 and evaluate the costs and benefits of reducing emissions or waiting for consequences.

Irrelevant and troll. What's your point? Where is the proof? Oh, you mean statistics or repeatable experiments? Umm, perhaps, statistics, which is something that you staunchly criticized above. You're self-contradicting.


Barry said...
Even I am not sure about whether climate change will happen.

But I am not willing to condemn people to die like you just because you don't wanna find that you are wrong.


Troll and irrelevant.

Let me ask you. Do you have any intelligence to debate or are you just trolling?

12/26/2009 12:44:00 am  
Anonymous Barry said...

Mr Fisi,

You are hitting your head against a brick wall.

You rail against AGW proof. BUt what you don't realise is that there isn't any PROOF as you like to call it. There are observations and experiments which provide uncertain and even questionable evidence of a link between CO2 and temperatures.

You know that if there was proper evidence that there is no link then there would have been no Copenhagen.

But there is no irrefutable evidence either way.

You have no idea how things happen in the real world.

Your search for mathematical certainty is not useful. The goal posts are not infront of you.

The real scientists are researching the link between CO2 and Temperatures.

As the time period increases on the researched data then certainty drops significantly. We all know that. You don't seem to understand it.

You are arguing against no-one! What an idiot.

The most focus in the IPCC reports is given to data from the last 50 - 100 years where reliable temperature records do exist.

Until you can PROVE that the temperatures have not increased in the last 100 years then no-one will listen to you.

No-one is saying that the correlation automatically means a causal relationship.

But you are the idiot that is trying to disprove that.

A correlation is enough to make people nervous.

because they have a brain that says it is POSSIBLE that there is a causal link and if there is then continued pumping of CO2 could have disastrous results.

But you would rather ignore the real world and go back to your basement and fiddle with mathematical models while people in the real world deal with real uncertainty that threatens peoples lives.

You care about no-one but yourself. And you care more about being right than saving lives.

You are sad.

12/26/2009 03:34:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
You are hitting your head against a brick wall.

Did you just describe yourself?

Barry said...
You rail against AGW proof. But what you don't realise is that there isn't any PROOF as you like to call it. There are observations and experiments which provide uncertain and even questionable evidence of a link between CO2 and temperatures.

There has been no experiments done on the climate system itself, but there has been model back-testing only.

Barry said...
You know that if there was proper evidence that there is no link then there would have been no Copenhagen.


Irrelevant. Copenhagen is not the same thing as proof.

Barry said...
But there is no irrefutable evidence either way.


Yep, that why I posted the cosmic-ray connection on the other thread. Since, those claims are only probabilities and correlations as you have defended previously because that's all we need. But which one that we should accept?

Barry said...
You have no idea how things happen in the real world.


Irrelevant. What's this got to do with whether CO2 or cosmic-rays is the cause?

Barry said...
Your search for mathematical certainty is not useful. The goal posts are not in front of you.


Irrelevant. Physics is about the predictive power of the mathematics. Why do you think that general relativity and quantum mechanics (2 pillars of physics) are so powerful in their predictive capabilities? All their predictions have never been proven false. That's certainty, isn't it? So, your point here is irrelevant.

Barry said...
The real scientists are researching the link between CO2 and Temperatures.


Real scientists are all round dudes, because they can self-taught themselves in any branch of science with no enrolment in a course or have formal training at all. Climate scientists are just scientists but not real scientists.

Barry said...
As the time period increases on the researched data then certainty drops significantly. We all know that. You don't seem to understand it.


As time goes on, more researched data will either confirm if it is CO2 or cosmic-rays and there is no argument there.

Barry said...
You are arguing against no-one! What an idiot.


No, I am arguing with you, since its you idiot who have hijacked this thread in the first place.

Barry said...
The most focus in the IPCC reports is given to data from the last 50 - 100 years where reliable temperature records do exist.


You obviously haven't read enough. It has been pointed out the only the last 40 years or data are accurate, because of using digital electronic measuring devices and anything prior to that period (1960s) is at best questionable.

Barry said...
Until you can PROVE that the temperatures have not increased in the last 100 years then no-one will listen to you.


The argument is not about temperature increasing. The argument is whether CO2 or cosmic-rays is the cause or may be it is a natural after all. Now, you're twisting the argument to temperature increase.

Barry said...
No-one is saying that the correlation automatically means a causal relationship.


No, you're fibbing. That's what you indirectly implied on the other thread.

Barry said...
But you are the idiot that is trying to disprove that.


No, you're the one who is an idiot and illiterate that you don't understand scientific concepts.

12/26/2009 04:28:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
A correlation is enough to make people nervous.


Look at the 2 references that I quoted on the other thread and see that such possibilities (cosmic-rays connection) will also make people nervous about something beyond our control. We can't control cosmic-rays can we? But still, such possibilities will make people nervous. It is better for them to be well prepared about such consequences of rising temperature rather than strangling industries via penalizing them for their carbon emission, if it turned out those cosmic-rays is the culprit. Do you see reason here or you choose to be an idiot by presenting obfuscating arguments?

Barry said...
...because they have a brain that says it is POSSIBLE that there is a causal link and if there is then continued pumping of CO2 could have disastrous results.


Cosmic-rays are another possibility and that also came from scientists who have got brain.

Barry said...
But you would rather ignore the real world and go back to your basement and fiddle with mathematical models while people in the real world deal with real uncertainty that threatens peoples lives.


IPCC report relies on Climate modellers that do fiddle with mathematical models in their basement. They sit there and wait for data to come in from data collectors or electronic instrumentations out in the field. This shows how little you know about climate science. You do seem not to favour mathematical modelling but then you approve IPPC report as authoritative, which itself rely heavily on mathematical modelling. Are you confused Barry, or simply because you're illiterate that you didn't know that mathematical modelling is what IPPC report relied on?

Barry said...
You care about no-one but yourself. And you care more about being right than saving lives.


Irrelevant. This is not a scientific argument. You're talking about your emotions and not presenting an argument.

Barry said...
You are sad.


No, in fact I am very happy, that I am everywhere on the internet trying to educate illiterates such as yourself so that they become aware about science (be it pro-AGW or anti-AGW) and at least, they can evaluate the outcome themselves and not to just follow blindly. Giving free lessons on the internet about science, makes me feel good and happy.

You're the one who is sad Barry.

12/26/2009 04:29:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Fisi,

Your mistake is highlighted where you compare cosmic rays to CO2.

One is preventable one is not.

But you compare them as if they are both the same.

If cosmic rays were caused by humans there may very well be investigations into them too.

making trend lines of temperature measurements and comparing them to CO2 levels is hardly rocket science. It has been done. And a correlation has been found. You cannot accept it.


What you consistently do is jump to your own conclusions about what people are saying.

That must be why you read the AGW articles wrongly.

It is also the reason you and others misinterpret Christmas Commercialism messages.

You don't live in the real world so you don't understand the nuances of what people mean.

At the end of scientific articles and in summaries they express their confidence in the results.

You should probably read that part of the reports.

NONE expressed 100% belief in AGW.

The public belief comes from thousands of reports all pointing weakly towards the same conclusion.

That is enough for people with a brain to do something and plan for contingencies = COPENHAGEN.

You would rather hide in the basement and cry about methematical models that are inconsequential to the overall outcome.

You show your irrational hatred and mistrust towards climate science in your railings against the methods used by climate scientists.

But it is clouding your vision.

Independent reviews have cleared them of any major problems.

Until someone confirms that there were any major issues then CLimate change is still on the table.

You see you are going on conspiracy theories.

But people in the real world like me go on research and analysis.

You are listening to rumours and accusations.

Until they are proven there is still enough evidence in climate research to indicate a potential link between CO2 and Temperature.

You really have shown your true irrational colours now!

A rational person would not consider a threat gone until it is conclusively proven to be gone. But you are willing to go on blog ramblings and third person heresay that AGW is false.

If a threat is presented a rational person will be cautios of that threat until it is gone. At least my ancesters did. Didn't your's? Maybe you are a recessive gene. Dont worry your line will obviously die out soon.

Do you cross the street and when the person beside you says "CAR COMING!!" you ask them to definitively prove it 100% beyond doubt before you move? Then you get run over because there was not time or ability to prove anything to 100% level.

Enter Cliamte change. Different situation...similar circumstances.

You want 100%. It is NEVER gonna come. Cautious approach wins with rational people. You are not rational.

12/26/2009 05:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
Your mistake is highlighted where you compare cosmic rays to CO2.

There is no mistake here barry. You claimed that all you need is correlation. I pointed out that observations is very deceptive and you can't rely on correlations. You then use the webster dictionary to lecture me on what correlation is, then when I pointed out non-linear relation, then you simply obfuscate.

Barry said...

One is preventable one is not.


Redundant. We knew that already. The issue is with you were saying that all we need is the simple correlation between CO2 and global temperature (this implies man-made), I have linked to papers on possible other causes, which again they use correlation. This is why correlation is not enough, but you argued that's all we need.

Barry said...

But you compare them as if they are both the same.


See above. Redundant. A 5 year old can see that they're not the same. You simply obfuscate in order to evade answering of which correlation to choose (CO2 or Cosmic-rays)?


Barry said...

making trend lines of temperature measurements and comparing them to CO2 levels is hardly rocket science. It has been done. And a correlation has been found. You cannot accept it.


Stupid and idiotic. Using the line of your argument here, we can say that correlation has been found between cosmic-rays and global temperature. Can't you see how stupid you are, or you just refused to see it that way?

Barry said...

What you consistently do is jump to your own conclusions about what people are saying.


No, I jumped into the correct conclusion when I see stupid and idiot people like you trying to debate a topic that is beyond their understanding. I am always right on that.

Barry said...

That must be why you read the AGW articles wrongly.


No, I read them correctly. It is illiterate like you that don't understand them and tend to make conclusions based on appealing to authority, since you lack knowledge about the subject itself.

Barry said...

It is also the reason you and others misinterpret Christmas Commercialism messages.


Where have I said that? You're fucking liar.

Barry said...

You don't live in the real world so you don't understand the nuances of what people mean.


Useless and irrelevant. What's this got to do with addressing your flipflopping on correlation?

Barry said...

At the end of scientific articles and in summaries they express their confidence in the results.


Statistics is not physics. You don't see such thing in general relativity or any of the fundamental physics. Standard model in particle physics doesn't predict that there may exist a 95% confidence that graviton particle exists and 5% non-existents. Do you see the difference. SM simply stated that graviton particle must exist in nature, period.

Barry said...

You should probably read that part of the reports.


I have, but you seem not to have done that yourself or otherwise, you would have linked to those chapters directly here.

The rest of your argument above are nonsense, irrelevant, redundant and useless.

Go and educate yourself in Physics, top up with advanced courses in mathematics, then you can start debating scientific issues such as AGW with confident. I wondered if TWR is correct after all, that you are a policy analyst at the Women's affairs dept. You have not cited a single scientific concept here so far in your arguments, not once. All your arguments were simply about your emotions and not about the science.

12/26/2009 05:28:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

You treat climate science like physics and that is your problem Fisi.

It is not physics. It is too inexact. And you cannot handle the uncertainty of that.

But that is real life.

Whether other factors are correlated with CO2 is interesting but since we cannot control them it is not the point.

If CO@ is correlated in some way and we can control it then prudent people do something to prevent tragic consequences.

You wanna let them die.

That is the difference between you and people with brains.

You have also gone back to confusing my definition of correlation with yours. Correlation in the dictionsary simply means a relationship between the movement in two variables.

You are aware there are many factors involved? Congratulations everyone knew that. That doesnt PROVE CO2 isnt correlated. Until you can prove it people with brains will consider excessive CO2 as a potential risk to the human species.

12/26/2009 05:50:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
You treat climate science like physics and that is your problem Fisi.

It is not physics. It is too inexact. And you cannot handle the uncertainty of that.


This is the most daft/idiotic comment I've seen in a long time. Look, climate models used physics principles and if you don't know that then you're an idiot. Fundamental physics also involve uncertainties, but their predictions are right on the dot.


Barry said...
Whether other factors are correlated with CO2 is interesting but since we cannot control them it is not the point.

Would you stop fibbing. After you said on the other thread that it is the main point, now you say it isn't.

Barry said...
If CO@ is correlated in some way and we can control it then prudent people do something to prevent tragic consequences.


The whole debate is about finding the cause right from the start. How about people preparing to adapt to the likelihood of global warming that is it non-man-made if it is something that is beyond our control?

Barry said...
You wanna let them die.


Fucking useless irrelevant comment. You said people are gonna die for about 5 times now.

Barry said...
That is the difference between you and people with brains.


I have got brain. I am sure that people from NIWA are reading this blog. Where are you if you have brain (according to illiterate Barry). Why don't you all step out here and have a scientific debate/spar with Falafulu? I know why they read silently, because I will give them a left hook , upper-cut with physics knowledge that will left, screaming as if Mike Tyson has been hitting them in real life.

Barry said...
You have also gone back to confusing my definition of correlation with yours. Correlation in the dictionsary simply means a relationship between the movement in two variables.


You are the one that confuses Barry. What happen if one variable moves and the other one doesn't move ( such as non-linear case in Photo-voltaic cell, although the 2 variables "current" and "voltage" are related ? Your dictionary's definition failed.

Barry said...
You are aware there are many factors involved? Congratulations everyone knew that. That doesnt PROVE CO2 isnt correlated. Until you can prove it people with brains will consider excessive CO2 as a potential risk to the human species.


You continue on with your fucking irrelevant argument and you don't seem to be get sick of obfuscating and nonsense comments.

Take my advice and go and educate yourself in science and stop fucking time-wasting here. Science/physics knowledge will make you an all round person.

12/26/2009 06:10:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

The fact that you consider climate science to be equivalent to theoretical phisics shows your inadequacy in this topic.

It is not physics. It is too inexact. And you cannot handle the uncertainty of that.

Although it can incorporate theories and models used in Phycics the outcomes can never be as exact. You still cannot understand that.

Just because some of the samee tools are being used doesn't make the job the same. You are an idiot for even trying to compare climate science to theoretical phyics. LOL

If CO2 is correlated in some way to temperature and we can control it then prudent people do something to prevent tragic consequences.

You wanna let them die.

12/26/2009 06:25:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Until anyone can prove that CO2 is unrelated to climate change with 100% surety then CO2 limitation policies are prudent and rational.

You can keep arguing around the periphery Fisi but you cannot prove that CO2 is not dangerous.

But there are thousands of pieces of research by leading scientists showing there is a link.

Once they are all disproven 100% fully and finally you are wasting your time.

You are asking governments to be irrational and do nothing in the face of potential catastrophy.

12/26/2009 06:29:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
The fact that you consider climate science to be equivalent to theoretical phisics shows your inadequacy in this topic.

It is not physics. It is too inexact. And you cannot handle the uncertainty of that.


Have you heard of statistical mechanics Barry? Climate can be treated as a many-body system , which is exactly what statistical mechanics (heart & soul of theoretical physics) covered. It deals with adaptive complex systems. Didn't you note that I have already mentioned complex adaptive system before. Since you haven't noticed that, then you must be fucking daft.

Barry said...
Although it can incorporate theories and models used in Phycics the outcomes can never be as exact. You still cannot understand that.


You keep fucking commenting on something that you don't know. See above on statistical mechanics (many body problem) of solving complex adaptive system dynamics.


Barry said...
Just because some of the samee tools are being used doesn't make the job the same. You are an idiot for even trying to compare climate science to theoretical phyics. LOL


Barry, stop fucking arguing useless points. Is it because you so dull to argue with me? You haven't heard of modeling many-body system haven't you? No surprise, since you're a scientific illiterate anyway.

Barry said...
If CO2 is correlated in some way to temperature and we can control it then prudent people do something to prevent tragic consequences.

Fucking stupid repetitive argument again. Find out the cause first and established it before taking action. Why waste billions on something that turned out to be false?

Barry said...

You wanna let them die.


Fucking irrelevant and not an argument.

12/26/2009 06:40:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Fisi natural science is not physics. Deal with it. If it was it would be called physics. It is not.

You are an idiot if you think natural sciences problems can be completely solved using theoretical systems. Even a high school student could tell you that observations and testing is required in the natural world. You just cannot understand that. Observations and testing are imperfect.

But you cannot understand it. Sad.

Governments are willing to spend billions because by the time the exact answer is found it may be too late. You don't know but you are willing to bet other peoples' lives on your small brain.

12/26/2009 06:48:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
Fisi natural science is not physics. Deal with it. If it was it would be called physics. It is not.

Barry you're muthafucking idiot. Physics is so diverse that other disciplines have become so specialized and to make them identifiable they adopt their own names. Cosmology, Atmospheric Physics, Astro-physics, Geo-physics, Solid-states, Photonics, Opto-electronics and so forth.

Barry said...

You are an idiot if you think natural sciences problems can be completely solved using theoretical systems.


Barry who is fucking idiot. You obviously haven't changed your tampons lately, because your brain cells are all dead. Go, on, change your tampons first then come back here to debate, and perhaps your head would be a bit clearer on what natural science is about. You keep putting forward idiotic arguments.

Barry said...

Even a high school student could tell you that observations and testing is required in the natural world. You just cannot understand that.


What's your point here? But you can't test by guess work since the possibilities are infinite and well-hidden, you fucking idiot?

Barry said...

But you cannot understand it. Sad.


And what do you understand again? What have you enlightened the readers here at Not PC with? Show me, which post of yours? You have shown no understanding here at all about anything. None whatsoever. It's because, you're an illiterate fucker.

Barry said...

Governments are willing to spend billions because by the time the exact answer is found it may be too late. You don't know but you are willing to bet other peoples' lives on your small brain.


Have you got a fucking point to make instead of trolling and keep posting irrelevant and useless comments?

12/27/2009 05:51:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Fisi, until you or anyone can 100% prove that CO2 is unrelated to climate change with 100% surety then CO2 limitation policies are prudent and rational.

But you said theoretical Physics is adequate to explain climate science 100%. With 100% certainty. You know this to be false because it is absurd.

Climate science relies alot on observational data. This is not theoretical physics.

Observational data has inherent uncertainties. Hence CLimate science CANNOT POSSIBLY be 100% certain in it's results or findings.

You need to take a course in basic science.

It is sad Fisi because you have degenerated into name calling rather than answering my questions. In fact you have evaded them completely.

Have skeptics 100% proved that CO2 does not influence climate in some way?

If not then you have to conceed that prudent governments are taking actions available to them to prevent a crisis they MIGHT be causing.

You cannot admit it because once you do it means all your waffle is worth nought.

It is fine to keep developing yur models etc but no-one wants to hear from you until you can 100$ disprove AGW.

Until then efforts to curb carbon are entirely rational.

It is you and LGM that are irrational and uneducated.

12/27/2009 06:05:00 pm  
Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

Barry said...
But you said theoretical Physics is adequate to explain climate science 100%. With 100% certainty. You know this to be false because it is absurd.

Show me, where have I said that?

Barry said...

Climate science relies alot on observational data. This is not theoretical physics.


Are you telling me that Thermo-fluid model/s which is heavily applied in climate science is not theoretical physics? Man, do you have any neuron activities in your brain or simply because you don't understand/know the difference here?

Barry said...
Observational data has inherent uncertainties. Hence CLimate science CANNOT POSSIBLY be 100% certain in it's results or findings.

You're good at repeating irrelevant comments aren't you? Define climate science?

Barry said...

You need to take a course in basic science.


And what is basic science?

Barry said...

It is sad Fisi because you have degenerated into name calling rather than answering my questions. In fact you have evaded them completely.


You have been evading all throughout in your debate here.

Barry said...

Have skeptics 100% proved that CO2 does not influence climate in some way?


After you have stated that we don't need 100% proof because its all about probabilities and possibilities, now you're demanding that CO2 is needed to be proven 100% that does not influence climate in some way.

You're not short of making self-contradicting comments here.

Barry said...

If not then you have to conceed that prudent governments are taking actions available to them to prevent a crisis they MIGHT be causing.


Irrelevant, emotional and not a scientific point.

Barry said...

You cannot admit it because once you do it means all your waffle is worth nought.


And your waffle worth something huh? What have the readers here at Not PC learnt from you? Have you offered something interesting and worth more to them?

Barry said...

It is fine to keep developing yur models etc but no-one wants to hear from you until you can 100$ disprove AGW.


Not my job to disprove. The ones who make the claim need to do that.


Barry said...

It is you and LGM that are irrational and uneducated.


Readers can tell the difference here between knowledgeable comments and useless ones. And it is very obvious to spot.

12/27/2009 07:26:00 pm  
Blogger Greig McGill said...

Readers can tell the difference here between knowledgeable comments and useless ones. And it is very obvious to spot.

Certainly can FF. It's very obvious Barry is just utterly clueless. Unfortunately, it's also obvious he's never going to change his mind unless you could do the impossible, and prove a negative. Even then, like a religious person, he'd probably still continue to argue "on faith", and think that was a virtue. I am not sure why you're wasting your time on him.

12/30/2009 02:12:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Its pretty good for you that you finally realised Skeptics cannot prove their point 100%.

And neither can AGW supporters.

So the issue is undefined...

If there was potential evidence of a terrorist plot to blow up a plane, and there was evidence refuting that evidence...would it be prudent for a government to just decide that since there is no 100% evidence they will do nothing?

Now you realise why there was a Copenhagen conference and why you also support climate change action.

Since it is logical try to avoid danger and AGW is a POTENTIAL danger which can be avoided...

...any prudent government would try to avoid it.

Otherwise they would be negligent.

It seems that either you support AGW mitigation methods or you are irrational.

Your theoretical physics may be ok but your logic an basic general knowledge is absolutely terrible! ha ha

12/30/2009 08:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt (now Russell Fletcher) said...

Barry, all your arguments here show that you're clueless to science. It is like a pub talk sort of conversation. You haven't shown any scientific debate at all, but troll. Reading through your comments and I can see that they're all rubbish. It is clearly that you're clueless.

12/31/2009 03:32:00 am  
Anonymous LGM said...

Barry,

Can you prove you are not a child molester?

Can you be certain that you are not a child molester?

LGM

12/31/2009 07:00:00 am  
Anonymous Barry said...

Kurt - cannot add anything to the debate. Must be a troll.

LGM - Can you prove 100% you are not a child molester? In fact it is not possible.

Difference between your argument and mine is that there have been hundreds of researched articles including observations and measurements upon which the risk of AGW is based.

There is no physical evidence to support your claims.

You made an assertions which is not backed up by research.

AGW is backed up by researcg.

Seems yuo are seriously lacking in scientific knowledge LGM.

How are your school holidays going? Did you get to go camping with your scout group? Did Santa give you a toy train for Xmas?

12/31/2009 09:42:00 am  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Barry, you've not shown that you know one single research at all here. You've never cited one. All you have argued here is that AGW is a well researched topic and you brought up the IPCC as an authority, that mustn't be questioned at all. Your reasoning is exactly the same as religious believers? They say that God exists simply because the bible says (their highest authority). They can't give reasoning outside the bible. They simply quote the bible to their opponents so as to mean that the debate should be immediately stopped. You keep referring to the IPCC, but you’ve not cited one chapter from it to show that you understand it, except that it was written by thousands of scientists (in your mind).

Every single post you made is the same thing except that you worded them slightly different. Where is your argument?

12/31/2009 10:42:00 am  
Anonymous Barry said...

Still playing the man, not the ball Kurt? Nothing to add to the argument...just a troll.

Sad.

12/31/2009 06:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

There is no playing the man in my messages above. You obviously trying to make it out that I am not playing the issue but that's exactly what I have raised. You haven't offered any counter-argument instead of you keep quoting the IPCC. That's not an argument is it? Saying that God exists and keep quoting the bible is not an argument at all. Come up with some arguments because if you don't then it is you whos' trolling here.

1/01/2010 01:27:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Still playing the Man Kurt.

Maybe you need to learn how to discuss topics properly.

I have no idea what you actually wanna say. I mean you have added nothing to the discussion. Reminds me of LGM. Sigh.

1/01/2010 03:04:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

And what have you added to the discussion Barry? You have added nothing at all. Don't you see that keep repeating the same thing over and over (more than 40 comments), but worded slightly different. You haven't added anything new at all. Start arguing the topic and stop repeating.

1/01/2010 05:12:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Ha ha That is because Kurt you cannot come up with any decent argument against it. Evasion only. All I do is argue in the straight line but you only enjoy to play to the man.

You are doing it now.

It seems that you also agree that Copenhagen was a rational action by the government. Since you cannot argue against that.

1/01/2010 05:17:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Barry, it is obvious that you're the one that is evasive. Everyone reading this thread and other related threads can see that you've been cornered by others in every single comment you've made, then you came back with the same argument but word it slightly different to make it seem that you have an argument. All your arguments have been answered as far as I can see on this thread and other related threads, but since you're good at evading, you then keep repeating the same thing over and over. This is exactly what trolling is.

You have essentially vandalized the discussion via your repetition of irrelevantly points, which is what Greig McGill described above. You're clueless to the subject being discussed.

1/01/2010 07:01:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Sorry Kurt. It seems that yet again you have added nothing to the thread.

No none of mu points were answered. Just evaded. Fisi liked to go off on statistical tangents while LGM like you preferred to aim at the person rather than the issue.

It seems that you are also a lightweight since you cannot discuss topics compared to me who discussed both the OP topic and when diverted by Fisi also discussed his correlation fetish.

But no worries. You will yet again write another post about me rather than any issue because we all know that you don't know anything about any issues.

1/01/2010 07:26:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Who's WE, when you said, ...because we all know that you don't know anything about any issues?

Does it occur to you that it is simply you (yourself), rather than WE (me & other readers), who disagree with what I have raised here? Readers (WE) can clearly see that you're clueless. You first brought up the correlation topic, and then FF answered. You then came back with the same question but word it slightly different and insisted, that's all one needs to establish AGW. You have been addressed each time by others and you keep coming back to change the goal post, like commenting that people with brain, blah, blah, blah. That's not an argument, is it? You simply said that in order to shut up your opponents and hide your cluelessness. You thus keep repeating and evading.

I can summarize your 40 or more comments here (including those from other threads) for you so you can see that you have added nothing to the discussion, but repeating and evading. Do you want me to do that?

You're acting like a punch-drunk person. Despite being highlighted to you, that you have added nothing to the discussion (since you've been addressed each time), you keep making comments for the sake of it. Your tactic is to make (repeating) comments as many as you can (regardless if they're relevant or not) so as to simply wear off others.

1/01/2010 11:46:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Actually Kurt you are evading the issue yourself.

Admit that attending Copenhagen is a rational response from a government faced with a potential crisis which can be avoided.

Until it can be 100% proven that AGW is false it is still a POTENTIAL CRISIS which a responsible government must face.

If the scientific case of the skeptics was so solid then there would not have been a Copenhagen.

But you cannot admit it can you. You cannot 100% disprove the correlation between C02 and climate.

So your crying about climate change is just baby tears.

An adult would either prove 100% that there was no AGW or accept that it is governments job to repond to threats to it's people.

But you are not an adult Kurt. You would rather play the man instead of the ball. That is because you have nothing useful to add to the debate except hot air.

1/02/2010 09:46:00 am  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Barry, you are still not presenting a scientific argument here. You keep babbling about Copenhagen as if the recent event that took place there had somehow truly established AGW.

As I said above, that your tactic is to post as many irrelevant comments as some sort of denial of service attack (DOSA) here on Not PC.

You will keep commenting just to wear down other commenters and you just did it with your last comment above. You had never presented a scientific argument at all. You have bombarded AGW related threads with your DOSA. Can't you see that you haven't presented a scientific argument but instead keep quoting what others had posted on the internet. Anyone who does this is a troll and a clueless person to the subject being discussed.

1/02/2010 12:20:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Again playing the man and not the ball Kurt.

Do you have anything to discuss apart from me?

Seems that you don't. You are still evading my question.

Because you know you are wrong.

1/02/2010 01:31:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Ha ha it seems that ironically it is you who is the troll Kurtand not me.

Since at least I have discussed the issues in this thread.

You simply wanted to talk about me.

I know I am interesting, but you flatter me, really. Climate Change is far more important than little old me.

But wait. Yes. You will again pot all about me and evade the real issues.

Sad. really sad. It seems that faced with logic you just fall flat on your face. he he

1/02/2010 01:37:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Yes, climate change scientific argument and not useless irrelevant points. The whole debate is about the science of climate change, where the IPCC has already declared that the science is settled and case closed. You haven't argued about the science at all. FFS, start arguing about the science and stop DOSAring all the related threads at Not PC. Who is going to bother you if you simply had put forward scientific arguments here, afterall, this is why this blog is here for, to discuss various arguments for and counter-arguments against, etc,... You haven't done that. All you have done is useless and irrelevant DOSA and it is beyond belief that you keep denying this fact.

1/02/2010 02:07:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Kurt you haven't even read the IPCC report. Because if you did you wouldn't be referring to it as "closing the case" on climate science.

They weighed the evidence and even taking account of all the credible skeptic research still there is nothing to date which can 100% rule out increased temperatures being due to CO2 emissions.

The scary thing about that is that if the link is true then with emissions dramatically increasing we could be in store for massive temperature rises with the potential risks this entails.

Until a skeptic can 100% rule out the link between CO2 and temperatures then any rational government would respond to this massive amount of evidence of a potential catastrophe in the manner they have - In Copenhagen.

To argue climate change science is a good idea and I applaud it. But to go into specifics of this or that study when the IPCC report refers to literally hundreds of published research pointing to a link, ... is rather futile. I will simply continue to refer you to the IPCC report and the weight of evidence it provides.

Until you can provide some research or reasoning that would make all governments sit back and say "Ahhh what where we worrying about" then all you say is just hot air.

So in the end it is your comments that are useless and irrelevant.

i think skeptic research is great. It strengthens knowledge in the area. It makes models more accurate. It gives a more balanced view of the scientific picture.

But the argument that one singular piece of skeptic research can cancel hundreds if not thousands of incremental pieces of AGW supporting research is naive. Because as Fisi failed to realise, it is an interdisciplinary field and the different pieces of AGW research cover a wide variety of measurements and models.

It is the weight of number of those pieces of research which make your case weak. Not just the merits of one or other of the articles you refer to.

But you will come back and attack the man again. because you actually do not understand the Climate Change Science issue at all. You just know how to type on a blog.

1/02/2010 03:34:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Barry, you said that you've read the IPCC, but I saw on the other thread that FF pointed out your clueless as to why the IPCC use of something sophisticated called monte-carlo (I don't understand what that is except it is a mathematical technique) when they can just use simple correlation as you have first mentioned in that thread. You said that you have read the IPCC, but you didn't have a clue to that monte-carlo math brought up by FF.

Look, you and me are both artists and I can read the IPCC and perhaps gain the same understanding as you claimed to have read it, but since we both don't have a depth of scientific understanding in natural science, I can only read and understand the non-scientific language part of the IPCC report. Anything like monte-carlo, would be beyond me and so as you.

Again, you wouldn't stop DOSAring until I simply stop replying. Keep referring to the IPCC is a generalization that you have used in order to hide your cluelessness, since you've never mentioned exactly which chapter that quoted something specific in order to support your argument.

Just accept that you're a rube and don't try to act otherwise.

1/02/2010 04:28:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Ha ha Kurt. Yet another post by you which is not about the issues but about me. I am flattered. And I feel sorry for you not being able to muster a single relevant post. Pity.

I do understand why they use Monte Carlo and you don't. That is the difference.

The IPCC Report is good reading I recommend it. You will change your opinion I am sure. If you wanna find the chapters the support Global Warming. Do you always get other people to do your work for you? Ha ha you are useless!

1/02/2010 05:35:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Barry, you don't understand monte-carlo. It was clear that you have no clue of what it is. If you did, then you wouldn't have stated that all one needs is a simple correlation. Read your own comment on the other thread about simple correlation between CO2 and global temperature which is exactly what you have stated over there. Are you lying or what? Again, try and act like a rube (from your own admission that you are) and don't try to act otherwise.

Again, another DOSAring from you. There should be a Nobel Prize for trolling and DOSAring that should be awarded to you. You're punch-drunk man. You keep arguing for the sake of it even though they're not scientific at all, since you know that is the only way that you think you can win an argument.

1/02/2010 06:26:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Ha ha. Kurt it is you that is wrong.

I used correlation as it appears in the dictionary to describe a relationship between two variables not a statistical method. Therefore it cannot be compared to Monte Carlo which is a statistical methodology.

Secondly, Not ALL climate science uses Monte Carlo simulations. The critical studies which establish measurements of CO2 and of temperatures don't all need to use Monte Carlo.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are an embarrassment.

1/02/2010 06:34:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Barry you said that the critical studies which establish measurements of CO2 and of temperatures don't all need to use Monte Carlo.

Now you're talking like an undisputed rube. It was critical in the IPCC report, that's why it was included on this chapter (Uncertainties in Evaluating Coupled Model), which I already quoted on the other thread. You talked about uncertainties and possibilities for establishing AGW and now you're saying that Monte Carlo wasn't critical? Geez, you keep contradicting yourself man. Just give it up dude, since you keep knocking/punching yourself in the head with such self-contradicting useless comment. Monte Carlo was used in the IPCC to establish those uncertainties and possibilities that you advocated for on the other thread. The other point that you clearly missed completely was saying that correlation is not statistic. To a rube, it is not statistic, but to scientists and mathematicians, it is statistics. Do you get that?

It is fun, seeing you waffling & weaseling, since you act like a punch-drunk person. Take the knock and go and enroll in some science courses to further your arts knowledge, because you're clearly clueless.

1/02/2010 07:14:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

What you don'y understand Act Youth (and probably will never) is that the IPCC conclusions were not made based on simulated models which use monte carlo methods.

The IPPC itself acknowledges that such models:

"For some time it has been apparent that these models give somewhat contradictory answers to the same questions -- e.g., a range from roughly 1.5 - 4.5°C in the global mean surface air temperature increase due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide -- due to subtle differences in their assumptions about clouds and other phenomena at scales smaller than the separation of model grid points (Cess et al. 1989; Mitchell et al. 1989)." IPCC

What this quote from the IPCC says is two things - these models are being used for PREDICTIVE purposes mainly and that they are highly unreliable because of the assumptions and multiple variables they must use.

You hardly understand anything at all.

Basic science has already shown that both CO2 and average temperatures have been increasing with some kind of positive relationship. The rate of both increases have been going up alarmingly...

Therein is the reason for Copenhagen. Until a skeptic can give governments concrete faith that this coincidence of CO2 and temperature rises is just a statistical anomaly then governments are rational to take preventative action.

But don't worry one day you will understand the real world.

1/02/2010 07:35:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Again the simplicity in your quote above :

...basic science has already shown that both CO2 and average temperatures have been increasing with some kind of positive relationship

fails me completely. It has been shown to you repeatedly, that if all one needs is a simple plot of global temperature against CO2 level, then why spend billions of dollars in AGW research? The reason is that your simple solution doesn't apply to complex domain as climate system. Don't you see how illogical & weak is your reasoning? Why spend billions?

1/02/2010 07:45:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

In my field (ie, psychological studies), correlation which is a statistical technique is heavily used in most data-analysis. My profession is often being attacked for using correlation, which often in some cases, those studies turned out to be false. We tend to be very cautious in making a claim based on correlation.

1/02/2010 07:50:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Unfortunately for you Kurt you need to look in the dictionary to see the general use of the word correlation. That is what I used. The statistical definition is not what I used. Generally it simply refers to a relationship between the change in two variables.

Act Youth, finally you are getting it! Well done. Simply looking at the positive relationship between CO2 and temperatures is not adequate. We need a better model. Unfortunately one does not exist yet.

At the present time there are very few things about the climate which are certain. The measurements of CO2 and temperatures are much more certain than monte-carlo based simlulations.

But just because AGW cannot yet be proven without doubt does not mean it is not a POTENTIAL risk.

the measurements of temperature and CO2 readings need to be PROVEN 100% co-incidence before people can forget about AGW.

You just might be learning something Act Youth! I am proud of you!

1/02/2010 10:03:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Barry, you still haven't answered the question.

Why spend billions, when they can just do a simple plot to see the positive correlation of temp vs CO2 level?

You have out-argued your level of understanding of science. Reading the IPCC report doesn't make you scientific literate and that's what you appear to have shown here. You thought you understand the subject, simply because you have read the subject. You have been exposed and knocked from all directions (including you knocking your own head via self-contradicting statements) and here you are trying to debate topics way beyond your grade ten science level.

You're a classic case of a punch-drunk person. Your head keeps receiving blows to it, and you still coming for more. The reason, you're still coming for blows, is that your only tactic is to post as many messages as somehow to wear others down. Give it up man, what have you got to lose? Others can see here that you're not debating the depth of the science but simply an idiot, ie, someone who keeps receiving blows to the head but still coming for more.

I have already stated to you clearly on the other thread that the issues of global warming had been criticized by skeptics on the over-reliance on mathematics and that's what you don't seem to understand. In natural science, mathematics often give prediction that are clearly unphysical, but scientists just take the math at face value and treat it as somehow, it is reality. Do you want examples of this? I don't think that you understood this point because science is not your cup of tea.

1/03/2010 06:11:00 am  
Anonymous Barry said...

Ha ha Act Youth. Did you even take science at High school?

correlation does not prove causation.

Are you such an idiot that you didn't know that?

They do have graphs showing the concurrent increases in temperature and CO2 but that does not PROVE that there is a relationship. It merely points to it being a strong possibility. That is because the science around greenhouse gases shows they have a role in trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The reason for the billions is to try and accurately define the relationship and the potential consequences. Because if Carbon Trading is going to cost the world economy Trillions in the future then a few billion spent now better understanding the issue is not too much is it?

Honestly, did you study ANY science at school? You still think that Climate science is based on complicated mathematical models. It is not. There are complicated models but they are used for predictive purposes and the attempts at modelling the climate system which is very very difficult.

But they are not what climate science is BASED on. It is based on the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Until you or anyone can prove that there is no relationship then governments will continue to act to limit carbon emissions. WHich is rational.

1/03/2010 08:16:00 am  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Barry, you're a rube and you have admitted that fact on the internet for the whole world to see. Why are you pretending that you're not?

Climate science is not about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. You have obviously exposed yourself as an illiterate. If you take the mathematics out of climate science then there wouldn't be any AGW skeptics today. You don't need billions to be wasted on in trying to accurately define the relationship and the potential consequences, as you think they should. You can run the same models in a PC and not a super-computer that costs millions, hang on, but you didn't know that did you? Of course you're a rube, you wouldn't know about it.

Climate science has been heavily mathematized, ie, it is vital. Take that from me, since doing a post-doc in computational mathematics, some of my co-authors in work that I have published recently had previously done modeling in climate science.

It is fun to watch you self-inflicting harm to your own head. Are you going to lose your mortgage if you don't make more idiotic comments for the sake of it? You obviously waste your time in spouting out useless comments after useless comments just to flood this blog. It is your tactic after-all.

Your problem is that you think because you've read the IPCC report (I doubt you understood half of it) then debating with PhD guys on this blog puts you on the same footing. Your illiteracy has been exposed and you keep coming back with idiotic comment such as did you even take science at High school? Aren't you being ashamed that you have admitted on the internet about your illiteracy, and then pose questions to others asking if they're illiterate like you?

You've been answered every time, and I am sure that you will keep making stupid/idiotic comment, because it is your tactic.

1/03/2010 10:28:00 am  
Anonymous Murray said...

OMG! Reading thru the garbage from Barry makes me wonder if he is the same one who posted at Kiwiblog as Luc Hansen. Luc has no clue to the science of global warming but keep posting messages at Kiwiblog as if he understands it. He has been exposed over there by other commentators (those with a scientific backgrounds), but Luc keeps posting irrelevant comments. I wouldn't be surprised if Luc (an activist for free Palestine) and Barry is the same person.

1/03/2010 10:47:00 am  
Anonymous Barry said...

Nothing added to the thread by Murray (except hot air).

Sadly Act Youth cannot tell the difference between Models which attempt to simulate climate conditions and empirical research measuring temperatures and CO2 concentrations.

The solution proposed at Copenhagen to the "Climate" issue is very simple - reduce carbon emissions. Why? So that temperatures are not increased too much.

That seems eerily similar to what I said that Climate science is basically about the relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and temperatures.

The mathematical models are very useful for predictive purposes and for attempting to "prove" that CO2 is the cause of temperature increase. However as we all know...these models have not yet done that much good. They have given some projections with a wide range of possible outcomes. The problem is there are so many variables and it is a complex system.

But, back to basics again. These mathematical models are where things are at the moment you are right, but that doesn't make them the fundamental basis for the science. They are the highly unrefined cutting edge where there is lots of argument and discussion.

You are just like Mr Fisi. You can see only the piece that has been fed to you without seeing the actual whole pie.

If there had been no relationship between CO2 and temperature rises stumbled upon 30 years ago you would have never heard of climate change. This relationship still forms the basis of every piece of climate change research. It is the goal to better understand this relationship.

Until it is fully proven beyond any doubt that the concurrent rises in CO2 concentrations and average global temperatures is purely coincidental...then governments of the world have something to worry about. namely that increasing emissions could eventually drown the world they live in today.

Sad that you cannot accept that.

1/03/2010 06:33:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

"These mathematical models are where things are at the moment you are right"

Barry, did you just say what I have cut & pasted above?

Can I give you a hug?

"...but that doesn't make them the fundamental basis for the science."

You're wrong there, it is fundamental to climate science.

1/03/2010 07:01:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Act Youth...Surprisingly I did not consciously copy what you wrote. But I guess after I read your post I wrote it that way.

You miss the distinction between something being fundamental vs THE FUNDAMENTAL.

I referred to the CO2-Temperature relationship as being THE FUNDAMENTAL basis of climate change.

It is certain that mathematical models are useful and even very important but that does not make them fundamental.

This fact is easily found because Climate science existed before any of these models were used.

So if you take those models out of climate science now you STILL have a climate science albeit not as advanced.

On the other hand if you take away the CO2-Temperature relationship then you have no Climate science. Because that is what started it all and what is driving everything.

So there you have the difference.

Don't worry, you were not wrong - you simply misunderstood the English I used. I guess you spent too much time in maths class and not enough in English.

1/03/2010 07:34:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Barry, studies on climate system first appeared in academics as a branch of physics (Atmospheric-physics, Geo-physics, Astro-physics, etc,...) and no wondered that its foundation is built on mathematical physics, and then it got so large to be a sub-discipline, it then splits into its own field. The crunch stuff in climate science is the mathematical physics, because it has expanded our understanding of climate system into a level that has never been seen before. Physical reality is well hidden, no matter how much data you have accumulated or collected from whichever sources/disciplines and that's fact.

1/03/2010 07:58:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Why don't you consider quitting your current job Barry (be it policy advisor at women's affairs dept, etc) and enroll in some science courses. It is simply laughable that you're debating with guys here who have done so, in which they have exposed the shortcomings of your understanding of climate science. This makes you look like an idiot.

This is the reason I don't debate the subject, since psychologists (including me), don't know a thing about climate science. I am just pointing out here, of how stupid your arguments on this thread as everyone can see. I've never attempted to debate climate science at all, since I am a rube like you. I am just making an observation based on reading thru all your comments. It is obvious that you have been outwitted and outmaneuvered here by your opponents and you still come back to make more dull comments.

1/03/2010 08:11:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Kurt...slobbers on the keyboard again.

Act Youth: The reason people are in Copenhagen IS NOT because people studied the climate with mathematical models. The reason IS BECAUSE someone found a link between CO2 concentration and temperatures.

That is why you are wrong.

If there was no CO2 link found there would be no Copenhagen. But without your models there would still be a Copen hagen.

Hence Co2 link is MORE fundamental to the Climate Issues discussed at Copenhagen than Mathematical models.

Of course both are important but you cannot seem to understand which one is the driver for Copenhagan and which one is the TOOL used there.

It is not relevant that the models were being used before the CO2-temp link was found. Just because it predates it does not make it the driver for the current Climate Issues.

I think you are too far into your book. You need to get up out of the basement and see what is happening in the real world.

1/03/2010 10:00:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Barry, why you think that the reason IS BECAUSE someone found a link between CO2 concentration and temperatures.

Again, you have shown here your illiteracy. What about the link between the cosmic-rays and CO2 which was brought up on the other thread? I guess that some found out about that link. This means that your point is irrelevant and useless.

Haha, it’s good to see you frothing and weaseling because you've been knocked from all directions and cornered that you can't move.

You also said that Co2 link is MORE fundamental to the Climate Issues discussed at Copenhagen than Mathematical models.

You're definitely clueless and also you're not arguing scientifically but irrelevant points. Look, saying that the Copenhagen meeting took place is not scientific point to make in a debate. The meeting was a political gathering. Do you understand the difference?

Take Kurt's advice. Resign from your current policy analyst role at the women's affairs dept, and then enroll in a science course. Your knowledge of science is so shallow and no wondered that you argue like an idiot here. You keep bringing up Copenhagen as somehow, you think that mentioning it, makes your argument scientific. It only makes you look like a school drop out.

1/04/2010 10:45:00 am  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Barry, how about you take a good look at the following vid highlights of some of young Mike Tyson in his days knocking out all his opponents.

Mike Tyson - Greatest Knockouts

You have been hit repeatedly & heavily on the head here on this scientific debate by your opponents (same as in the Tyson vid) and you still coming back for more hits. It is time for you to check in to the hospital or otherwise, you going to be a punch-drunk for life.

I insist that you watch the Mike Tyson - Greatest Knockouts, because that's exactly you.

1/04/2010 11:13:00 am  
Anonymous Murray said...

Barry, yes I have nothing to add except hot air. I don't know the subject to add anything. You pretend that you know or think you have added anything new here, but AFAIK, I see nothing scientific from you except useless babbling, which makes you look like an idiot.

By the way, you're bleeding heavily from those knocks. I urge you to retire early man.

1/04/2010 11:45:00 am  
Anonymous Barry said...

Murry and Kurt slobber on their keyboards again...

Act Youth, nice try but Cosmic rays are not the reason for Copenhagen. CO2 is. So you are wrong there. Yet again.

If you wanna discuss climate science as it exists separate from the debate which took place in Copenhagen, like I said, you won't get any arguments from me. I don't care, nor do most people. It is just another science.

But where climate science is a current issue for most people and governments in the world is the issue of AGW. And AGW is Completely based on the CO2-temperature relationship. Otherwise there would be no debate, no issue and no interest from anyone.

Has this blog made ANY posts on climate science which are completely unrelated to Copenhagen (i.e. AGW)? Actually no.

So what are you even trying to talk about? You wanna talk about yourself and your fund times with mathematical models but none of it matters to anyone outside of your basement unless it has to do with AGW, Copenhagen and Man-made GLobal warming.

And in that situation CO2-Temp is more fundamental than your models. And you have yet to prove otherwise. Because you cannot.

1/04/2010 12:37:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Barry you stated that cosmic rays are not the reason for Copenhagen but CO2 is.

That's exactly why skeptics are questioning the consensus. You said that someone found out the correlation of CO2/Temp, the basis for the Copenhagen, but it has been pointed out to you above that someone also found that there is a correlation of Cosmic-rays/Temp. Your argument is irrelevant to bring up Copenhagen, since it was a political gathering rather than a scientific one. In science, you look at all possibilities and not to predetermine the outcome. You simply make irrelevant reference to the Copenhagen meeting.

Why do you say that CO2-Temp is more fundamental than my models? I have no models of my own Barry; I simply quoted the over-reliance of the IPCC on the models that I happened to understand thoroughly. That's the issue. CO2/Temp relationship was established using models but I guess that you didn't know that since you only went up to grade ten science level.

Have you got anything scientific that is new to add? You keep babbling about Copenhagen, but that's not a scientific point, is it? You are no different to a religious believer that keeps referring to the bible as somehow makes his/her arguments valid. You're repeating the same over and over again, with nothing new and I know that's your tactic. You make a fool of yourself by keep commenting. Retire now, as Murray suggested.

1/04/2010 01:10:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

I need to ring an ambulance for you Barry, because you've been knocked out unconscious a few times here and you want to come back to the ring for more damage to your head. You've surpassed the punch-drunk stage now, into insanity.

Ok, here is the appropriate Mike Tyson Rap Song, which highlighted all his knockouts, that you might enjoy.

Tupac Remix of Mike Tyson Knockouts

I am not here to debate climate science, because I know nothing about it. I am here solely to laugh at you being punched on the face, exactly as Tyson did to his opponents in that vid above.

1/04/2010 01:22:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Sorry Act Youth but you misunderstand the science.

Cosmic Rays may well be all or part of the reason for temperature rises.

But until CO2 is 100% excluded as a cause then governments will continue to act.

No, the CO2 - temperature relationship was very simple - CO2 concentrations increasing + temperature increasing. It doesn't require any model.

Mathematical Models are used to simulate the climate system. But they are not the reason for the AGW issue. the CO2-temp relationship is.

Models are a tool. You still cannot understand the difference between a tool and a scientific basis.

You still say there is a climate controversy. Actually no, there is a fact that CO2 and temperature are both rising and until this can be PROVEN 100% as a pure coincidence then governments will act to reduce carbon emissions. Which is rational.

Debates over models and impacts and how much the CO2 is a factor are ongoing but as yet no-one has come up with definitive proof either way.

You are an idiot if you think that governments work along the same lines as a scientific journal.

So your moaning about climate issues is in fact just hot air. The issue is plain to see and scientific debates go on as they always do. But there is no link whatsoever between any skeptic argument and what governments should do because until you can conclusively eliminate the CO2 risk as a factor governments are doing exactly as they should at Copenhagen and with establishing emissions targets.

The world doesn't wait for science to be proven, because actions must come first. You obviously have not set foot outside of your basement in years. You should step outside it is a nice day:)

1/04/2010 01:29:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Kurt...admits his own ignorance. Sad.

1/04/2010 01:47:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Barry, you've shown here again about your scientific illiteracy and also your level of understanding. The establishment of CO2 as the likely cause of temp rise was determined by a model and not the simple correlation as you've made out here.

Now, you mentioned that you've read the IPCC report, so a hint for you is to look up forcing function. It has got something to do with AGW claim. If you don't understand the math, then I can help you otherwise, go and study some real science courses, then come back here at the end of this year (2010) for a rematch. You will be well prepared by then. One can drive a huge truck thru the hole in your knowledge.

You're bleeding heavily Barry. Throw in the towel and save yourself from making any more nonsense/idiotic comments, because you're obviously debating a topic that is way out of your depth. I am not surprised at all because you only went up to grade ten science level.

1/04/2010 02:23:00 pm  
Anonymous Kurt said...

I am not an ignorant person Barry, because I've never debated in my whole life about a topic that I have no clue about. The person who is ignorant is you, Barry. You get hit with punches from all directions and you're starting to walk like Trevor Berbick when Tyson delivered him a storm of punches (see the link to the Tyson knockout vid above). Berbick tried to get up after Tyson first knocked him down and started to perform pop/break dance-type walking, ie, starting to walk sideways. It’s time to call in the ambulance to take you to the hospital, Barry.

You look like an idiot every time you come back to post another comment, because you have been exposed as a person who is illiterate and clueless to climate science. Do you think that you’re going to win some prize money for posting the most comments here as you have done so, even though they’re irrelevant and useless? You have determined that you’re going to DOSA (denial of service attack) this blog at whatever prize, even if you’re bleeding heavily. This is trolling Barry.

I know why you won’t throw in the towel. You know that this blog posts as many sceptic’s articles on AGW, and if you can shut up your opponents now (with troll and useless comments), then any future anti-AGW blog post here at Not PC, no one will make a comment because you’ve already run down your (knowledgeable) opponents via your useless/trolling comments from previous debate, such as this current one.

1/04/2010 02:49:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Can anybody explain what any of this has to do with making Christmas more commercial?

Which was, I believe, the subject of the post.

Remember the post?

1/04/2010 04:08:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Act Youth it is sad that your scientific knowledge is
so poor. Truly sad.

Actually it was not. First in 1824 Joseph first discovered the fact that gases trap heat into the earth.

It was many years later that John Tyndall in 1859 measured and proved the heat absorption capabilities of gases found in the climate. Professor Tyndall was the first to correctly measure the infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, etc.

The first person to use mathematical models to input this data into a mathematical climate simulation model was Svante Arrhenius in Stockholm in 1896 when he suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level.

However none of these models could reach consensus until in 1938 Guy Callendar who compiled measurements of temperatures from the 19th century on, he found they were right. He went on to dig up and evaluate old measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. He concluded that over the past hundred years the concentration of the gas had increased by about 10%. This rise, Callendar asserted, could explain the observed warming.

So there you have it the AGW issue we discuss did not come out of any complicated models. It came from one man who postulated a greenhouse effect for the earth; one man who measured CO2 apsorption and one man who connected temperature rises to CO2 rises.

So YOU my friend are wrong. Dead wrong. And it feels so good.

1/04/2010 07:01:00 pm  
Anonymous ACT Youth said...

Well, in 1824 Joseph Fourier first discovered the fact that gases trap heat into the earth and that wasn't about CO2, was it? Prior to Guy Callendar's 1938 measurement, the noise heavily masked any attributable effect to CO2. What they didn't know if that was due to natural variability or human induced. Do you get the difference? Only in the last few decades that a model was used to tell if it is indeed natural or human induced. Another idiotic comment that shows your illiteracy, just give up man.

Barry, I can tell that you've been Googling on the internet for information, huh? Here is a fact, you didn't know anything about it prior to this discussion, so you Google for it. Crikey, you should thank the inventors of Google, for inventing Google, so that grade ten science level people like you can find information instantly, in an online discussion like this.

If we have to sit down and debate face to face then you wouldn't be able to answer anything at all, because I have the knowledge in my brain stored there already, while you simply rely on Google to find info as you go, since you don't know anything about science. Nice try Barry, but I can tell you've been Googling to find historical accounts of greenhouse effect.

By the way, do you have any clue to what Joseph Fourier had achieved? I don't think you know anything about him at all (except Wikipedia and internet of course), since you're a school drop-out. I wrote my PhD thesis on function transformations such as Legendre and Fourier, particularly the Short-Time-Fourier-Transform (STFT). This means that I know in great depth about the work of Fourier and his contributions to science and mathematics. Oh, and Fourier analysis is used heavily in climate science, such as shown below:

A solar radiation model with a Fourier transform approach

Stop pretending that you know, because it is obvious that you don't. You say that my scientific knowledge is so poor, but readers can see here that yours is straight from the internet and not something that you have studied (like me). It is your scientific knowledge is so poor according to your grade ten science level.

You've just posted another idiotic/irrelevant comment. Give it up man, because you have so many cuts on your face and bleeding heavily that you should stop wasting PC's blog bandwidth.

I apologized for keep replying to Barry PC, since if I stop, then he thinks he can make unopposed future comments in your next anti-AGW posts since he has managed to wear down his opponents, not by intelligent or scientific debate, but simply by hijacking this thread with his illiterate comments.

Happy new year to you PC and all the readers here anyway.

1/04/2010 08:56:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

And a Happy New Year to you too, sir.

:-)

And with that last exchange, I now declare this thread officially closed--before it enters the century of comments it barely deserves--and Barry is hereby put on probation for all the reasons so ably articulated in AY's last comment.

1/04/2010 09:02:00 pm  

<< Home