Re: OT: Global warming strikes again.

Restoring the snipped context

a source

Nial Stewart doesn't like George Monbiot - a Guardian journalist who happens to think that anthropogenic global warming is real.

As far as I can work out, George Monbiot is an honest journalist, and what he reports as facts do seem to be confirmed by other journalists.

Nial Stewart wants to reject the whole of SourceWatch because it quoted an item from George Monbiot's blog (which happens to be part of the Guardian newspaper's web-site).

This strikes me as unreasonably partisan, even for a denialist nitwit.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Surely, the presence of Man must have some sort of impact on global temperature, be it warming or cooling. And, whether that impact be warming or cooling or neutral, more taxes, more edicts, and shared sacrifices will necessary to solve it, the more the better.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Most definitely, especially when it is known that the measurements are obviously incorrect (2 reasons here) - being based on (1) measuring radiation from parking lots using (2) uncalibrated instrumentation.

That's just it. The IPCC will never get the endorsement of Mother Goddess, because the IPCC is an agent of the God of Power, who is in opposition to Free Will:

Hope This Helps! Rich

Everybody knows garbage in, garbage out. So when you send garbage data into a garbage model, you get garbage squared. ;-)

I do have a passing familiarity with computer programming, and I know how easy it is to write a "computer model" that will tell you anything you want it to.

Of course, the sheeple fall for it because "The Computer said so!"

Cheers! Rich

When are the bureaucrats going to do their share of "shar[ing] [the] sacrifices?"

Thanks, Rich

He's got The Faith.

Cheers! Rich

a?

Rich lacks the wit to imagine any other basis for belief, though in fact what I've got isn't so much belief as a judgement that anthropogenic global warming is a better supported hypothesis than anything else available.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

m o

ws

c

ts

to

nt

Rich may indeed have a passing familiarity with computer programming. but he doesn't know enough to realise that he has been programmed by the denialist propaganda machine.

He takes their garbage in, unprocessed by any informed scepticism, and spouts it out again, as a classical zombie processor - an unwitting member of the denialist botnet.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

"Anything else"? Better than F=M*A? Better than the Standard Model? Better than Maxwell's equations?

I've seen this claim before, that the AGW climate models are the best science around. It's perfectly insane.

John

No, even dumber.

enda?

A better supported hypothesis that anything else that purports to to explaim the warming we've seen over the last century.

I think you should have paid a litte more attention to the context.

Your interpretation of what I posted is perfectly insane. The current batch of climate models are perfectly respectable science, but they are coarse-grained models of a complicated situation. If someone puts together a super-computer big enough to allow the modellers to divide their cells down into cloud-sized or smaller elements, they will be able to simulate discrete clouds rather than some cloud smeared out over cells that measure 50km by 50km.

And it will be nice when the Argo buoys serve up enough data on heat transfer through the oceans to allow the modellers to get that right.

Despite your ill-informed reservations, the climate models we have now are perfectly adequate to tell us that we've got anthropogenic global warming going on at the moment and that it would be a very good idea to take action to slow - ideally to reverse - this warming. This is going to make some energy intensive processes more expensive - in the short term - but it doesn't involve going back to the stone age, and in fact shouldn't need to produce any perceptible cuts in our standards of living, unless of course you are a heavy user of commericial aviation.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Since it's not going to happen, concern over the quality of the science is sort of moot.

This is COP16.... SIXTEEN!

So, why don't you relax about AGW and do something useful?

John

You lack the wit to design electronics.

John

enda?

I was listening to George Noory last night with some guest speaker explaining how exotic electronics may be the doom of our civilization. Just one EMP event would knock out all the computers, internet and cell phones. The military may be ok with mil-spec (EMP hardened) stuff in metal boxes. But most of us would be helpless with no electricity, broken ATM machines, gas pumps not working, banks in collapse, broken Satellites, communications, etc. And nobody knows how to write a receipt anymore if the machine doesn't do it.

Scary huh?

-Bill

Why right away evil Comrade of the evil Rich--did you not hear? No pay raises for two years for our beloved civil maste^H^H^H^H^Hservants, the President said so.

Never mind that their ranks have swollen, or that they make double the private average.[1]

[1]

-- Cheers, James Arthur

BTW, that does not apply to the pay grades (time in service, etc.), promotions, or COLAs. All it does is freeze the "grid". Wow! That's severe!

Yep. Their retirement is far more than twice the average.

I remember the "good old daze" of computers in the '60s and '70s (IBM

709, 7090, etc) where all kinds of engineering homework and class calcs were done...to 15 digits. And the idiots believed every digit "because the computer said so"! Usually, slide-rule (remember them?) accuracy was the best one could do. But use the wrong numbers, the wrong formula, an inappropriate algorithm, and the results (ALL 15 digits) were still believed! Almost nobody did any slide-rule or BOE checking. Aren't we modern now? We can f** up a million times faster! Lemme see now, sum all fractions of the form 2^-n from n=0 to infinity and get the sum of 3 plus E^(pi*i) on a -->computer