Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Bobbo, you’ve said nothing relevant or even useful to further the discussion. It’s like I’m talking tho an Evangelist. I state provable facts and you talk philosophy. I can see there is no convincing you, no matter what the proof, no matter what the evidence. So you go ahead and believe the popular illusion of consensus, as is your god-given right, and I’ll continue to see through the ruse as clear as glass.
Skeptic–looks like we are coming to a Mexican Hatdance, an impass. Only Pedro can help resolve this but he never says who he is responding to so his comments are useless. I wasn’t going to respond sensing your defeatism, but since you posted twice, I must lend the helping hand.
To your point, who is being more evangelical and dismissive?
I guess we need a god to part the clouds and anoint the better argument? You say life in a greenhouse is not artificial but is proof of co2’s activity on growing plants that would remain true if applied to the biosphere of mother earth.
Now, I see that as definitional idiocy. What else is a greenhouse BUT artificial? Growing orchids in the desert, watermelons at the north pole and whatnot. Now, I will accept that if “all” the conditions of the greenhouse can be applied/maintained for the entire earth, then the case would be made. Was I too quick? I have just assumed the entire earth cannot be controlled as can a greenhouse.
I had a greenhouse once. Worked for 4 years and then some kind of black mold got a hold and the whole thing had to be taken down. Thats raises the short term/long term analysis. How many decades were those greenhouses in your studies run for???
Does the dictionary help?====(looking for the first time)====”a building with glass walls and roof; for the cultivation and exhibition of plants under controlled conditions.” /// Seems helpful? but this is a variation of my own admission above.
Skeptic–tell me true==can manking keep the earth under controlled conditions?
As I’ve stated before, we are all living in a greenhouse…. a natural greenhouse… not with glass dummy. The earth is a closed self regulating (controlled) system. The atmosphere in all it’s complexity keeps us warm. The greenhouses we make within the greenhouse only improve on a system that is pretty good for being natural, but not as good as it could be as far as agriculture is concerned. We have been using and improving on greenhouses for over 100 years because of the 20-50% better yield.
You know, when we were talking about Polar Bears, your first reaction to my naming the scientist who contested that polar bears were diminishing, was to assume he was a nutball and insult his credibility… a typical Evangelistic AGW tactic. It’s because you are so attached to one side of this argument that you are blind to, and dismiss the REAL experts… who deserve better!
I suggest you read about Richard Lindzen. More than 235 peer reviewed papers over a 45 year span, and regarded as the expert on atmospheric sciences. He’s another great mind being smeared by the AGW climate whores.
Well now skeptic, I see you are midway into a deepening death spiral. Its all “definitional” which a true skeptic accepts as axiomatic. A system is closed depending on how you define its boundaries and its inputs? But you avoid the main issue repeatedly. Greenhouse controlled small scale environments don’t tell us all we need to know about how the entire atmosphere with the same co2 levels is going to act.
If you continue to disagree, then we see the world very differently. I see it as definitional, you see it as absolute. Hard to be a skeptic when you see the world in absolute terms.
but I came to post a relevant article I have only read the title to. Might be a fun read, or really irritating. How can one be a denier if the science is not settled?
http://newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial
We are talking about how CO2 affects agriculture in a greenhouse. 500 ppm is the same whether the space is enclosed or not… or are you suggesting otherwise?
I am open to any scientist that doesn’t resort to alarmism to hide speculative underlying data, as the only means to get attention. That’s why I can accept papers from the FAO of the UN while being disappointed in many of the IPCC publications. That’s why I respect Scientists like Richard Lindzen and have little respect for Ben Santer. You keep trying to project labels on me that best describe yourself.
Bobbo, it’s 1:30 am. I’m tired.
Have a good night.
I do? Besides having fun with skeptical and quibbling, I don’t think so. Many complaints have an equal and opposite meaning. Deep psychological stuff I “believe” exist, but don’t often see so clearly as to label it such.
A weakness in myself.
Like the first article in my link. Whats wrong with me that I have not yet to date placed climate change deniers in the same category as Aids deniers, or Holocaust deniers. I guess I don’t care enough about the subject to become that wedded to the position and I do have my doubts.
I envy you Skeptic. Nice to be so firmly convinced of a position when a consensus of scientists are against you. Do I have any such positions?? Can’t think of any. I’ve been bought off I guess.
A nice SOCIOLOGICAL mix of things going on. The politics separate from the science of AGW. The politics, where science doesn’t apply, of reactions to AGW.
Seriously, to set the boundaries==what evidence would you want to see to convince yourself AGW is true?
As I always take on the burden of whatever I ask, my correlative answer would be a consensus as deep and wide against AGW by scientists as qualified with an explanation of what happens to all the carbon we pump into the atmosphere so that it doesn’t have an effect.
Ocean levels continue to rise. You can say its sea bed volcanic release of heat, but no scientists do.
Occams Razor???
Bobbo, re: “Seriously, to set the boundaries==what evidence would you want to see to convince yourself AGW is true?’
Odd question. I’ve always said and still maintain that AGW is “true”… meaning that we are having some effect. The areas where I’m skeptical, in no particular order. I’ve never actually listed them like this before so I reserve some level of future fine tuning or minor editing.
1) the actual net effect of CO2 on GW, demonstrated by the worlds most recognized expert in atmospheric feedback that the modeling is severely flawed.
2) the alarm generated by the inadequacies of point one
3) the persistent and superfluous public announcements of pending doom by scientists, when there is absolutely no underlying data to back it up. (The ONLY reaction to any perceived anomaly is to blame AGW when plenty of alternative and compelling causes are at hand.)
4) the concerted efforts of the doomsday climate science community to discourage discussion with non consensus scientists.
5) censorship of IPCC submissions from prominent well respected scientists
6) censorship of AGW challenging papers from prominent science publications
7) AGW money making schemes relying on alarmism
8) the contradictory lack of transparency from the AGW consensual climate science community considering they are saying we are facing extinction
9) the MO of the AGW consensual climate science community to NOT publish or recognize any positive effect of global warming or increased CO2 concentrations
10) the lack of attention given to, and lack of alternative solutions… that you would normally expect from scientists … and the paltry experiments, to solve some of the more insidious threats of CO2 (like ocean acidification)…. again contradictory to the level of alarm.
… and as a final comment bobbo, re the question you posed, I don’t need to convince myself of anything. That onus is on the orgasmic consenting scientists of catastrophic AGW.
heh, I had no idea an 8 and right parentheses made that emoticon.
8)
Hey!–You are right. I’ll try some other combo’s at the end.
I think you’ve got some fine tuning to do, but its your list, and your fun, at your convenience.
I’m laughing: if you think AGW is true to whatever extent, you certainly are dancing with angels on that pinhead. Seems to me, the only way you could think AGW is true, is to believe the science of the matter? And if that is true, you really should have 80% of most of your answers? In the main, as stated before, I think you confuse the politics and fraud surrounding the science, with the science itself.
But always hard to tell.
80 89 8- 8= 8+ 8^ 8#