Comments on: Faith, True Believers And Indulgences http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/ Summum nec metuas diem, nec optes - Marcus Valerius Martialis Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:27:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55362 kim Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:38:08 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55362 Since I'm baffled by your ice core comments; I'm not sure that this question fits with your analogy, but suppose the switch does have causal connection to the light being on or off. Then what, in the past, has caused the the switch to go on and off. Surely not man? ====================== Since I’m baffled by your ice core comments; I’m not sure that this question fits with your analogy, but suppose the switch does have causal connection to the light being on or off. Then what, in the past, has caused the the switch to go on and off. Surely not man?
======================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55361 kim Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:33:53 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55361 Look, Chet, I have a unified theory. You have a set of programmed responses, which you faithfully believe. First, check out what the big boys say about atmospheric temperatures, and then see what the sun is doing, It is steadily increasing in energy output. In addition, you are hampered by the belief that skepticism about the anthropogenic component of any global warming has a religious basis. You need to lose that attitude if you want to talk to the big dogs, of which I'm not one. They hang out at Climateaudit.org, and allow me the occasional layman's sophomoric comment. Most of the hysteria about global warming is faith based, and not supported by the science. Do your own homework. ===================================== Look, Chet, I have a unified theory. You have a set of programmed responses, which you faithfully believe. First, check out what the big boys say about atmospheric temperatures, and then see what the sun is doing, It is steadily increasing in energy output. In addition, you are hampered by the belief that skepticism about the anthropogenic component of any global warming has a religious basis. You need to lose that attitude if you want to talk to the big dogs, of which I’m not one. They hang out at Climateaudit.org, and allow me the occasional layman’s sophomoric comment.

Most of the hysteria about global warming is faith based, and not supported by the science. Do your own homework.
=====================================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55360 kim Sat, 17 Feb 2007 13:24:22 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55360 The sun as a reactor is gradually increasing its energy output, insolation. Your short term trend since 1990 is a tiny blip. Show me your data that the atmosphere's temperature is rising. It is simplistic to believe that planting a tree surely helps. As a response to the theoretical question of the effeciency of markets, it is mirth provoking. Sure, cover the earth with trees. Explain your ice core bright idea, please? ============================== The sun as a reactor is gradually increasing its energy output, insolation. Your short term trend since 1990 is a tiny blip.

Show me your data that the atmosphere’s temperature is rising.

It is simplistic to believe that planting a tree surely helps. As a response to the theoretical question of the effeciency of markets, it is mirth provoking. Sure, cover the earth with trees.

Explain your ice core bright idea, please?
==============================

]]> By: Chet http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55265 Chet Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:30:28 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55265 Um, no. The sun is <i>not</I> slowly heating up; it's been slowly <i>cooling</i> since 1990 at the same time that the bulk of the recent warming has been occurring. Solar cycles aren't responsible for the warming. That's pretty basic logic. <i>Ocean and atmospheric temperatures in both hemispheres is not rising.</i> Again, I'm not sure where you're getting your information. By half a dozen metrics - direct temperature measurement, plankton cover, etc - both the ocean and the atmosphere have experienced dramatic warming. <i>You are naive to believe that buying carbon credits will help more with carbon sequestration than it will hurt with decreased effeciency of access to energy.</i> I don't understand how planting a tree decreases anyone's access to energy, unless you think we're pulling down power lines to plant these trees. <i>the science has not shown that the recent rise in carbon dioxide, almost surely anthropogenic, is not merely the post hoc of rising temperatures but also the propter hoc.</i> The ice core data shows the connection. It's as dramatic a demonstration as flipping a switch and a light goes on. The first time? Yeah, maybe it's coincidence. But the ice core data is like flipping the switch on and off for 650,000 years, and seeing the lights go on and off every time. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? The first time, that's a reasonable question. But the same thing happening for 650,000 years of observation? At that point, asserting that it's an unknown whether or not this switch controls those lights is just being absurd. Um, no. The sun is not slowly heating up; it’s been slowly cooling since 1990 at the same time that the bulk of the recent warming has been occurring.

Solar cycles aren’t responsible for the warming. That’s pretty basic logic.

Ocean and atmospheric temperatures in both hemispheres is not rising.

Again, I’m not sure where you’re getting your information. By half a dozen metrics – direct temperature measurement, plankton cover, etc – both the ocean and the atmosphere have experienced dramatic warming.

You are naive to believe that buying carbon credits will help more with carbon sequestration than it will hurt with decreased effeciency of access to energy.

I don’t understand how planting a tree decreases anyone’s access to energy, unless you think we’re pulling down power lines to plant these trees.

the science has not shown that the recent rise in carbon dioxide, almost surely anthropogenic, is not merely the post hoc of rising temperatures but also the propter hoc.

The ice core data shows the connection. It’s as dramatic a demonstration as flipping a switch and a light goes on. The first time? Yeah, maybe it’s coincidence. But the ice core data is like flipping the switch on and off for 650,000 years, and seeing the lights go on and off every time.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? The first time, that’s a reasonable question. But the same thing happening for 650,000 years of observation? At that point, asserting that it’s an unknown whether or not this switch controls those lights is just being absurd.

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55259 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:44:32 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55259 Do you see a resemblance to a nearly two hundred year old 'religion'? Marx misconstruing Hegel? Naw, probably not. ======================= Do you see a resemblance to a nearly two hundred year old ‘religion’? Marx misconstruing Hegel?

Naw, probably not.
=======================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55258 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:42:55 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55258 The idiots are more useful, and powerful, when they are hysterical. ===================================== The idiots are more useful, and powerful, when they are hysterical.
=====================================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55256 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:39:11 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55256 So really, you know, letting the rich buy carbon credits, letting the traders become meta rich, will really just be grinding down the poor with the increased inefficiency of energy access. You don't really want that, now do you? Do you? Who are 'you'? =============== So really, you know, letting the rich buy carbon credits, letting the traders become meta rich, will really just be grinding down the poor with the increased inefficiency of energy access. You don’t really want that, now do you?

Do you? Who are ‘you’?
===============

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55255 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:35:45 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55255 All I know is what I read at Climateaudit.org and what I see with my own eyes as I wander from hither to thither. Hat tip to Wiley Post's crony. ==================================== All I know is what I read at Climateaudit.org and what I see with my own eyes as I wander from hither to thither. Hat tip to Wiley Post’s crony.
====================================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55254 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:29:04 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55254 See, that corrupted crackerbarrel gets my goat. He's been to seminary for God's Sake, or someone's. His family heritage is journalism. He should know that it is evil to get the story wrong. ==================== See, that corrupted crackerbarrel gets my goat. He’s been to seminary for God’s Sake, or someone’s. His family heritage is journalism. He should know that it is evil to get the story wrong.
====================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55253 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:20:52 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55253 Mann's Crooked Hockey Stick surely is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. His bristlecone pine tree ring series, key to his hysteria inducing fraud, is actually a proxy for the fertilization effect of increasing carbon dioxide. So it is a tautalogy. Believe it or not, on that fallacy and tautology hang the Kyoto Accords and all the social injustice inherent in them. Sure, sure, you can sneer at 'sociology', but everytime that Gorebellied Fool opens his mouth, somewhere something sentient freezes. Take that Kar, ma, and drive it to meetin'. ========================= Mann’s Crooked Hockey Stick surely is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. His bristlecone pine tree ring series, key to his hysteria inducing fraud, is actually a proxy for the fertilization effect of increasing carbon dioxide. So it is a tautalogy.

Believe it or not, on that fallacy and tautology hang the Kyoto Accords and all the social injustice inherent in them. Sure, sure, you can sneer at ‘sociology’, but everytime that Gorebellied Fool opens his mouth, somewhere something sentient freezes.

Take that Kar, ma, and drive it to meetin’.
=========================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55251 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:12:47 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55251 I'll make it simple: the science has not shown that the recent rise in carbon dioxide, almost surely anthropogenic, is not merely the post hoc of rising temperatures but also the propter hoc. See? Simple. ============== I’ll make it simple: the science has not shown that the recent rise in carbon dioxide, almost surely anthropogenic, is not merely the post hoc of rising temperatures but also the propter hoc.

See? Simple.
==============

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55250 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:09:26 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55250 So tell me, is 'genuine hysteria' OK, as opposed to say, 'ersatz hysteria'. You sound like you at least give lip service to reasoned debate. So what's with the 'hysteria'? ============================= So tell me, is ‘genuine hysteria’ OK, as opposed to say, ‘ersatz hysteria’. You sound like you at least give lip service to reasoned debate. So what’s with the ‘hysteria’?
=============================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55248 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 17:04:22 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55248 Well you asked a specific question. You are naive to believe that buying carbon credits will help more with carbon sequestration than it will hurt with decreased effeciency of access to energy. ============================================ Well you asked a specific question. You are naive to believe that buying carbon credits will help more with carbon sequestration than it will hurt with decreased effeciency of access to energy.
============================================

]]> By: kim http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55247 kim Thu, 15 Feb 2007 16:59:31 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55247 The sun is very slowly heating up, so insolation constantly gradually increases, varying in cycles, around that gradually rising curve. Solar cycle #25, weaker than most is coming up and will be felt over the next few decades. In addition, we are still coming out of the LIA to temperatures of approximately a millenium ago. Also, most recently, surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, possibly affected by Urban Heat Islands have been rising, but not in the Southern Hemisphere. Ocean and atmospheric temperatures in both hemispheres is not rising. I believe carbon sequestration is the classic response, and has been highly effective. Look at all the limestone around you. Carbon's origin is vulcan, it's virtually permanently sequestered by the action of the sun and biomatter in the form of carbonates and hydrocarbons, with only rare and unusual unsequestration. Water, in all its phases, is capable of either positive or negative feedback on the thermal regulation of the planet. With insolation gradually increasing, and with carbon only appearing effervescently in the atmosphere, we are kept on the cusp of glaciation. Is this the state of the science? Now why would you want to interfere with the natural regulatory mechanisms of the climate by trying to wring significant amounts of energy from the sun, the wind, and the water. Don't you know everyone's downstream? And why would you want to presume about my religion? I think I've never heard so loud, The quiet message of a cloud. ========================= The sun is very slowly heating up, so insolation constantly gradually increases, varying in cycles, around that gradually rising curve. Solar cycle #25, weaker than most is coming up and will be felt over the next few decades. In addition, we are still coming out of the LIA to temperatures of approximately a millenium ago. Also, most recently, surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, possibly affected by Urban Heat Islands have been rising, but not in the Southern Hemisphere. Ocean and atmospheric temperatures in both hemispheres is not rising.

I believe carbon sequestration is the classic response, and has been highly effective. Look at all the limestone around you. Carbon’s origin is vulcan, it’s virtually permanently sequestered by the action of the sun and biomatter in the form of carbonates and hydrocarbons, with only rare and unusual unsequestration. Water, in all its phases, is capable of either positive or negative feedback on the thermal regulation of the planet.

With insolation gradually increasing, and with carbon only appearing effervescently in the atmosphere, we are kept on the cusp of glaciation.

Is this the state of the science?

Now why would you want to interfere with the natural regulatory mechanisms of the climate by trying to wring significant amounts of energy from the sun, the wind, and the water. Don’t you know everyone’s downstream?

And why would you want to presume about my religion?

I think I’ve never heard so loud,
The quiet message of a cloud.
=========================

]]> By: Chet http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/comment-page-1/#comment-55179 Chet Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:44:19 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/02/12/faith-true-believers-and-indulgences/#comment-55179 The solar hypothesis has been discredited, guys. Earth's insolation has been <i>falling</i> during the same period that global temperatures have been <I>rising.</i> We're already <i>in</i> a solar cooling period, with no sign that it's sufficient to retard anthropogenic climate change. I agree that there's no small amount of hysteria that surrounds the issue; but it's the genuine hysteria of laypeople who respect science heeding the warnings delivered by scientists. Regardless, the science of global warming is sound and has withstood all scrutiny. We can debate the sociology that surrounds the issue, and don't get me wrong, a lot of it is ridiculous - but that's a different issue than the sound consensus science that underlies findings such as the IPCC AR4. In a debate this important it's crucial to get the science right. As it regards to this post - exactly what is wrong with buying carbon credits? Carbon sequestering is one of the leading proposals to combat greenhouse gases. Do you have some evidence that this practice is ineffective? Or is your sole criticism that it bears some surface similarity to a centuries-old practice in your religion? The solar hypothesis has been discredited, guys. Earth’s insolation has been falling during the same period that global temperatures have been rising. We’re already in a solar cooling period, with no sign that it’s sufficient to retard anthropogenic climate change.

I agree that there’s no small amount of hysteria that surrounds the issue; but it’s the genuine hysteria of laypeople who respect science heeding the warnings delivered by scientists. Regardless, the science of global warming is sound and has withstood all scrutiny. We can debate the sociology that surrounds the issue, and don’t get me wrong, a lot of it is ridiculous – but that’s a different issue than the sound consensus science that underlies findings such as the IPCC AR4.

In a debate this important it’s crucial to get the science right. As it regards to this post – exactly what is wrong with buying carbon credits? Carbon sequestering is one of the leading proposals to combat greenhouse gases. Do you have some evidence that this practice is ineffective? Or is your sole criticism that it bears some surface similarity to a centuries-old practice in your religion?

]]>